/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200427.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 27, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 84 Headlines ABSOLUTE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Goetz Says ALLERGAN INC: Newman Suit Transferred to New Jersey ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Steijn Sues Over Failure to Refund Passes AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Gill Suit Transferred from Kansas to D.N.J. AMERICAN OUTDOOR: Faces Shooting Victims' Class Suit in Canada AQUAVENTURE HOLDINGS: Faces Culligan-Merger Related Suits ATLAS FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Fryman Class Suit Still Pending BANK OF AMERICA: Morgan Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington BANKAMERICA CORP: Denial of Deal Fund Payment to Minton Affirmed BANKERS LIFE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Mackey Suit Affirmed BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Park Employees Fund Files Suit in Pennsylvania BUMBLE TRADING: Out-of-State Plaintiffs' Claims in King Narrowed CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California CB FLEET: Court Enters Protective Order in Allcott Fraud Lawsuit CH ROBINSON: Abuses Exclusive Sales Agreement, Lusk Suit Alleges CH ROBINSON: Court Certifies CSE Class in Dietrich FLSA Lawsuit CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS: Ayers Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California CIRCLE K STORES: Suaverdez Suit Removed to District of Colorado CRESCENT CAPITAL: Alcentra Capital Faces Stockholder Class Suits CRUNCH LLC: Fox Suit Over Labor Claims Removed to E.D. California CUSTOM WIRE: Fails to Properly Pay Operators, Jannette Claims CVS PHARMACY: Crowley Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts D. HOUSTON INC: McMinn Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA DELTA DENTAL: Baldwin Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois DELTA DENTAL: Braunstein Suit Moved from W.D. Ky. to N.D. Ill. DELTA DENTAL: DeVinney Suit Moved From California to Illinois DELTA DENTAL: Dickey Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois DELTA DENTAL: Drs. Lutins Suit Moved from M.D.N.C. to N.D. Ill. DELTA DENTAL: Kottemann Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois DELTA DENTAL: Mells Antitrust Suit Moved From Calif. to N.D. Ill. DELTA DENTAL: Mincy Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois DELTA DENTAL: Obeng Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois DELTA DENTAL: Schwartz Suit Moved from E.D. La. to N.D. Ill. DELTA DENTAL: Stephens Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill. DELTA-SONIC: Lennert et al. Seek Payment for Wait-Times, Overtime DEVA CONCEPTS: Consumers Sue Over Hair Care Product Side Effects DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE: Buchsbaum Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. DOW JONES: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Horton Suit DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION: Gizze Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ELI LILLY: Rochester Drug Hits Insulin Price-rigging EQUITI US: Faces Motes Suit Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme EVENTS AND ADVENTURES: Carisi Sues Over Membership Fee Collection FAULT LINE LOGISTICS: Vargas Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California FORD MOTOR: Wins Summary Judgment in Beaty Class Suit FUSION INDUSTRIES: Garza Suit Moved From D.N.M. to W.D. Oklahoma GENERAL MOTORS: Claims of 5 Out-of-State Plaintiffs in Sloan Nixed GEORGIA: Walters Sues Challenging Ban on Carrying Guns in Public GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Maroney Sues Over Defective SlimFast Oil GYK DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Workers Under FLSA & NJWPL, Romero Says HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Belin Suit HEALTH INSURANCE: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Florida Suit IRWIN INDUSTRIES: Williams May File Second Amended Labor Complaint JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Roman Seeks Damages From Breach of Contract JUUL LABS: Carroll Sues in N.D. Cal. Over Sale of E-Cigarettes JUUL LABS: Faces Dyer Suit in N.D. California Over Use of E-Cigs JUUL LABS: Faces Perry Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigarettes JUUL LABS: Faces Pulce Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigarettes JUUL LABS: Gibson Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Use of E-Cigarettes JUUL LABS: Wilhelm Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Use of E-Cigarettes JUUL LABS: Williams-Walker Sues in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigs KEIM ENTERPRISES: Faces Gritz TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Fister MIAMI-DADE, FL: Fails to Respond to COVID-19 Threat, Swain Says MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Suris Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site MOWI ASA: Hunt-Alpine Club Suit Moved from Maine to S.D. Fla. MOWI ASA: Prime Steakhouse Suit Moved From Maine to S.D. Florida NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hall Suit Transferred to Illinois NATIONAL CREDIT: Ivey Sues in Virginia Over Violation of RICO Act NEW PRIME INC: Parker Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California NEW YORK: Thomas Sues Asserting Claims for Prisoner Civil Rights NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bolden Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York ORION CAPITAL: Bryan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina PEL-STATE BULK: Workers Seek Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 PIONEER EXPLORATION: Dillard Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages PROMISE HOME: Questions on Settlement in Abraham FLSA Suit Issued PRUCO LIFE: Settlement in Behfarin Suit Wins Initial Approved QUAPAW HOUSE: Faces Schatz Suit Over Reduced Employee Paychecks RATNER COMPANIES: Faces Olsen FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages RECRO PHARMA: Wins Dismissal of IV Meloxicam-Related Suit REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Underway RITE AID: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ROADRUNNER TRANS: Accord in Wisconsin Securities Suit Fully Paid SALESFORCE.COM INC: Expert Discovery Underway in Scheufele Suit SANOFI US: APESAC Class Action Underway in France SANOFI US: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales of Lantus(R) SANOFI US: Faces Suits Over Zantac(R)-Related Injuries SANOFI US: RICO Claims in Insulin Pricing Class Suit Dismissed SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Rolland Class Action SPARK ENERGY: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in Veilleux Suit TOTAL CARD: Davis Class Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive" TRAVELERS AID: Court Approves $8.5K Settlement in Carney Labor Suit TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Acerra Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Florida TRULIEVE CANNABIS: McNear Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Florida TUFF CREW LLC: Portales FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida UNITED SITE: Williams CEPA Suit Moved to District of New Jersey VERDE ENERGY: Jurich Settlement Approved Court Orders Dismissal VIACOMCBS INC: Derosa Sues Over Unremitted Contributions WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending WORLD FINANCE: Solis Sues over Unwanted SMS Messages, Phone Calls WPB HOSPITALITY: Holmes Sues Over Misclassification of Dancers ZOOM VIDEO: Cullen Sues Over Illegal Personal Data Disclosure ZOOM VIDEO: Taylor Sues over Personal Info Disclosure to Facebook [*] GMS Receives Proceeds as Part of Class Action Settlement ********* ABSOLUTE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Goetz Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LORI GOETZ v. ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV14380 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 14, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have deprived the Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated their minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint also asserts claims against the Defendants for wrongful termination in violation of public policy; retaliation in the Fair Employment and Housing Act; disability discrimination; failure to accommodate; failure to engage in the interactive process; unpaid meal and rest period premiums; waiting time penalties; and wage statement violations. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a security officer on January 5, 2019. She was primarily stationed at a bus station in Pomona. Absolute International Security provides security guard services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 733-2498 Facsimile: (562) 628-5501 E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com laurel @buchsbaumhaag.com ALLERGAN INC: Newman Suit Transferred to New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ellen Newman, Amy Grotte, Rachael Herron, Lisa Roberts, Amy Edens, Heidi Lee, Amber Ferrell-Steele, Tory Bobadilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Allergan Inc formerly known as: INAMED CORPORATION, Allergan USA Inc. and Allergan PLC, Defendants, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with the assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05968 to the U.S. District Court District for the District of New Jersey on February 25, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-BRM-JAD. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225 Tel: (215) 238-1700 Fax: (215) 238-1968 Email: jshub@kohnswift.com ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Steijn Sues Over Failure to Refund Passes ----------------------------------------------------------- Milan Steijn, Abbas Gokal, and Joseph Panganiban, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY U.S. INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00755 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2020), seeks relief from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law; and breach of express warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion and breach of contract arising from its failure to refund resort passes. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all of the Defendant's customers nationwide that purchased Ikon Pass Products for the 2019-2020 season who, as of March 15, 2020, had not used up all of the days remaining on their Ikon Pass Products. According to the complaint, the Defendant has made the unconscionable decision to retain its millions of customers' passholder fees while closing 100% of its mountain resorts as the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rages throughout the world and the United States economy has gone into a deep recession. For the 2019-2020 ski season, the Defendant sold two annual passes, the Ikon Pass and the Ikon Base Pass to costumers in the United States and throughout the world. The Defendant sold the Ikon Pass Products promising pass holders "unlimited skiing and riding destinations" for many of its resorts and up to 5 or 7 days of skiing at other ones. To visit the Defendant's mountain resorts, consumers could have purchased either of the Ikon Pass Products, which range anywhere from $40 to over $1000 depending on the Product and the age of the consumer. On March 14, 2020, the Defendant announced that it was closing all of its mountain resorts indefinitely. The Defendant initially announced "Alterra Mountain Company will suspend operations at our 15 North American ski resorts, starting the morning of Sunday, March 15, until further notice." In response to the indefinite closure of the Defendant's resorts, the Defendant created a "Covid-19 Update" page where it stated that the Defendant has "doubled the renewal discount on 20/21 Ikon Pass products" to "address the shortened 19/20 season." Instead of offering a refund, the Defendant retained the full price of its customers' Ikon Pass Product fees while 100 percent of its mountain resorts remain closed to the public, according to the complaint. The Defendant has not refunded any consumers for their lost mountain resort access. Accordingly, customers who did not have a chance to use all of their purchased Ikon Pass Products get zero consideration or compensation for their inability to use those unused, purchased days, even if they wanted to. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendant has unjustly enriched itself by retaining passholder fees of hundreds of thousands of consumers--while denying passholders access to all of its mountain resorts. The Plaintiffs are annual pass holders of the Ikon Pass Products. The Defendant offers consumers access to over 40 mountain resort locations through its Ikon Pass Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com breed@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220 Miami, FL 33133-5402 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: scott@bursor.com AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Gill Suit Transferred from Kansas to D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Carolyn Gill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-02681 (Filed Nov. 4, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on March 25, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03230 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's marketing, sale, and manufacturing of the drug Makena, a hydroxyprogesterone caproate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Sean Cooper, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MI 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Ashlea@PaulLLP.com Sean@PaulLLP.com AMERICAN OUTDOOR: Faces Shooting Victims' Class Suit in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- American Outdoor Brands Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the Company is a defendant in a putative class proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The action was filed on December 16, 2019. The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs. The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto on July 22, 2018, and their family members. One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a class action. American Outdoor said, "We intend to vigorously oppose the proceedings." American Outdoor Brands Corporation, formerly known as Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation until 2016, is an American manufacturer of firearms and outdoor sports and recreation products. It owns 18 brands. Its principal brand is Smith & Wesson firearms. The company is based in Springfield, Massachusetts. AQUAVENTURE HOLDINGS: Faces Culligan-Merger Related Suits --------------------------------------------------------- AquaVenture Holdings Limited said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 5, 2020, that the compan has been named as a defendant in class action suits related to its merger with Culligan International Company. On December 23, 2019, AquaVenture Holdings Limited entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "merger agreement"), among the Culligan International Company ("Culligan"), Amberjack Merger Sub Limited ("Merger Sub") and the Company providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "merger"), with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Culligan. On February 18, 2020, the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a definitive proxy statement with respect to the special meeting of the Company's shareholders scheduled to be held on March 16, 2020, in connection with the merger (the "special meeting"). In connection with the merger with Culligan announced on December 23, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, Post v. AquaVenture Holdings Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-174, was filed by purported shareholder Joseph Post against the Company and its directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2020. On February 12, 2020, in connection with the merger, a lawsuit, Hamilton v. AquaVenture Holdings Ltd., et al., 1:20-cv-01227, was filed as an individual action by purported shareholder Peter Hamilton against the Company and its directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 20, 2020, purported shareholder Christopher Jagt filed an individual lawsuit against the Company and its directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern district of New York, captioned Jagt v. AquaVenture Holdings Ltd., et. al.. 1:20-cv-931. The merger actions generally allege that the Preliminary Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on January 27, 2020 or the Definitive Proxy Statement filed on February 18, 2020, as applicable, misrepresents and/or omits certain purportedly material information and assert violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all defendants and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's directors. The merger actions seek, among other things, an injunction enjoining consummation of the merger, costs of the action, including plaintiff’s attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and other relief the Court may deem just and proper. The defendants believe that the respective allegations asserted against them in the merger actions are without merit and intend to defend against the lawsuits vigorously. Similar cases may be filed in connection with the proposed merger. AquaVenture said, "While the Company believes the merger actions lack any merit and that the disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, solely in order to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation, the Company has determined voluntarily to supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement with the supplemental disclosures." A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3bWzTmZ. AquaVenture Holdings Limited is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, develops, and provides water purification, disinfection, and desalination solutions. AquaVenture Holdings operates around the world. The company is based in British Virgin Islands. ATLAS FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Fryman Class Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 201, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Fryman v. Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01640, is still pending. On March 5, 2018, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the Company and two of its executive officers on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company’s securities, styled Fryman v. Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01640 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2018. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was fully briefed as of December 12, 2018. On April 1, 2019, before the Court had addressed defendants' pending motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to include allegations relating to the Company's press release dated March 4, 2019 disclosing a further increase in its loss reserves. The Court subsequently granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on April 9, 2019. On June 5, 2019, before the defendants had responded to the second amended complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to add allegations relating to developments occurring after the Company's March 4, 2019 press release. The Court subsequently granted the motion for leave, and plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint on June 12, 2019. In the third amended complaint, the plaintiffs asserts claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of the Company's securities between February 22, 2017 and April 30, 2019. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements or failing to disclose certain information regarding the adequacy of the Company's reserves. The complaint seeks, among other remedies, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may find just and proper. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 17, 2019, and briefing on that motion was completed on October 31, 2019. The motion remains pending before the Court. Atlas Financial said, "Under the federal securities laws, discovery and other proceedings automatically will be stayed during the pendency of the motion to dismiss." Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. is a financial services holding company whose subsidiaries specialize in the underwriting of commercial automobile insurance policies, focusing on the "light" commercial automobile sector. This sector includes taxi cabs, non-emergency para-transit, limousine, livery and business auto. The company is based in Schaumburg, Illinois. BANK OF AMERICA: Morgan Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Daviel Morgan, an individual, and all those similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., was removed from the Washington Superior Court, Spokane County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on April 16, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00157 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as marine contract. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company based in Charlotte, North Carolina, with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong Kong, and Toronto.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Cameron, Esq. CAMERON SUTHERLAND PLLC 421 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 315-4507 Fax: (509) 315-4584 Email: bcameron@cameronsutherland.com - and - Kirk D Miller, Esq. KIRK D MILLER PS 421 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: (509) 413-1494 Fax: (509) 413-1724 Email: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura Coughlin, Esq. WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK LLP 612 S Lucile Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98108 Phone: (206) 946-9811 Fax: (949) 608-9142 Email: lcoughlin@wrightlegal.net BANKAMERICA CORP: Denial of Deal Fund Payment to Minton Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: BankAmerica Corporation Michael B. Minton, Movant Appellant, Case No. 19-2968 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the 2018 motion of Michael Minton, the trustee of the Jack W. Minton Living Trust, seeking payment from a 2002 class action settlement fund. It concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion and declining to reopen litigation in the case. A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's April 1, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/qeI04k from Leagle.com. BANKERS LIFE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Mackey Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARTIN MACKEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BANKERS LIFE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. D075029 (Cal. App.), Judge Judith Haller of the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the Court's order denying the Defendant's motion to compel Mackey to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis. Mackey filed a class action complaint against Bankers and two of its managers, alleging he and similarly situated workers were misclassified as independent contractors and he was wrongfully terminated for complaining about the status. In 2013, Mackey began working for Bankers as an insurance agent in "Office 1040," which includes its two Orange County offices. Two years later, Bankers requested he sign an arbitration agreement mandating that covered disputes be resolved in binding arbitration and that he waive his right to bring class and other collective actions in arbitration. Mackey signed the agreement, believing it was a requirement of the job. Bankers terminated Mackey about two years later in February 2017, shortly after he allegedly complained that he and other workers were misclassified as independent contractors. Several months later, on Aug. 31, 2017, Mackey filed a complaint in Orange County Superior Court against Bankers and two of its managers/officers (Maryam Habashi and Richard Harman). Mackey alleged wage and hour violations on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals currently or formerly working in Office 1040. He claimed Bankers misclassified him and the other workers as independent contractors instead of employees. He sought damages under applicable Labor Code sections; declaratory, injunctive and restitutionary relief under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL); and penalties under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004. He also alleged an individual wrongful discharge claim based on his assertion that Bankers terminated him for complaining about his independent contractor status. About one month later, on October 2, the Defendants filed an answer denying the allegations. They asserted 15 affirmative defenses, but did not include the arbitration agreement as one of these defenses or otherwise mention the agreement in its answer. After conducting some class discovery and unsuccessfully attempting to fully coordinate the action with another class action, the Defendants moved to compel Mackey to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis. They argued that all of Mackey's claims were subject to arbitration, and their delay in seeking arbitration did not bar their arbitration rights because no depositions had occurred; only limited discovery had been exchanged; no trial date had been set; and there was no prejudice to Mackey. In opposing the motion, Mackey did not dispute his claims were within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement, but argued (1) defendants waived their right to compel arbitration; (2) his PAGA claim is not subject to arbitration because the waiver is not enforceable under skanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC; and (3) the arbitration agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable. The court denied the motion on two independent grounds: (1) the Defendants waived their arbitration right; and (2) the parties' arbitration agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Bankers challenges both findings. Judge Haller concludes that Bankers made an informed choice to defend Mackey's claims in a class action rather than in an arbitration forum, and could not fairly change its mind once it took actions that imposed unnecessary costs and delay on Mackey. A party that signs a binding arbitration agreement and has subsequently been sued in court has a choice: it can either seek to compel arbitration or agree to litigate in court. It cannot choose both. A party may not delay seeking arbitration until after the court rules against it in whole or in part; nor may it belatedly change its mind after first electing to proceed in what it believed to be a more favorable forum. Allowing it to do so would result in a waste of resources for the parties and the courts and would be manifestly unfair to the opposing party. Based on the foregoing, Judge Haller determines that substantial evidence supported the Court's waiver finding and affirmed the order on this basis. She thus does not reach Mackey's challenges to the Court's unconscionability finding, and does not discuss the facts or law relating only to the unconscionability issues. Accordingly, she affirmed the Order. Appellant Bankers will bear the Respondent's costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's April 1, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/ihguxU from Leagle.com. Littler Mendelson, P.C. and William Hays Weissman -- wweissman@littler.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. Cornerstone Law Group, Harry Lewis -- hlewis@cornerlaw.com -- and Gordon W. Renneisen -- grenneisen@cornerlaw.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent. BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Park Employees Fund Files Suit in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barclays Capital Inc. The case is styled as Park Employees And Retirement Board Employees Annuity And Benefit Fund of Chicago, Petitioner v. Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, LLC, Shane Cooke, Liyanaarchchie De Silva, John Delucca, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Endo International PLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Arthur Higgins, Nancy Hutson, Michael Hyatt, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Rajiv Kanishka, Roger Kimmel, William Montague, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, MUFG Securities Americas Inc. (f/k/a Misubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.), Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Daniel Rudio, Jill D. Smith, William F. Spengler, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc, TD Securities (USA) LLC and Suketu Upadhyay, Respondents, Case No. 14 EDM 2020 (Pa., Super., Feb. 12, 2020). The category of the suit is stated as Civil. Barclays Capital Inc. operates as a brokerage firm and investment advisor. The Company buys and sells securities such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investment products, as well as manages investment portfolios and financial planning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy T. Myers, Esq. Elliott Greenleaf, P.C. Elliott Greenleaf P.c. Po Box 3010 Blue Bell, PA 19422-0780 Tel: (215) 977-1062 - and - John M. Elliott, Esq. Elliott Greenleaf, P.C. Elliott Greenleaf P.c. 925 Harvest DrSte 300 Blue Bell, PA 19422-1956 Tel: (215) 977-1004 - and - Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, LLP 7 Times Square 27th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 789-1340 Fax: (212) 205-3960 The Respondent Barclays Capital Inc. is represented by: Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1650 Market St Ste 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 665-6912 - and - Scott Edelman, Esq. Milbank, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 The Respondent Citigroup Global Markets, LLC is represented by: Kerns, Kevin Thomas, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1650 Market St Ste 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 665-6912 - and - Scott Edelman, Esq. Milbank, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 The Respondent Shane Cooke is represented by: Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - McNally, Laura Hughes, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Morgan Lewis & BockiusLlp 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent Liyanaarchchie De Silva is represented by: Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - McNally, Laura Hughes, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent John Delucca is represented by: Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - McNally, Laura Hughes, Esq. Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is represented by: Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1650 Market St Ste 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 665-6912 - and - Scott Edelman, Esq. Milbank, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 The Respondent Endo International PLC is represented by: Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - McNally, Laura Hughes, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is represented by: Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1650 Market St Ste 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 665-6912 - and - Scott Edelman, Esq. Milbank, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 The Respondent Arthur Higgins is represented by: Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - Laura Hughes McNally, Esq. Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent Nancy Hutson is represented by: Giblin, Thomas James, Jr., Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - Laura Hughes McNally, Esq. Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent Michael Hyatt is represented by: Thomas James, Jr. Giblin, Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - Laura Hughes McNally, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is represented by: Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1650 Market St Ste 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 665-6912 - and - Scott Edelman, Esq. Milbank, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 The Respondent Rajiv Kanishka is represented by: Thomas James, Jr. Giblin, Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - Laura Hughes McNally, Esq. Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP Morgan Lewis &BockiusLlp 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent Roger Kimmel is represented by: Thomas James, Jr. Giblin, Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - Laura Hughes McNally, Esq. Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent William Montague is represented by: Thomas James, Jr. Giblin, Esq. Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 - and - Laura Hughes McNally, Esq. Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Tel: (215) 963-5000 The Respondent Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is represented by: Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1650 Market St Ste 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 665-6912 - and - Scott Edelman, Esq. Milbank, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 The Respondent MUFG Securities Americas Inc. (f/k/a Misubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.) is represented by: Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1650 Market St Ste 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 665-6912 - and - Scott Edelman, Esq. Milbank, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 The Respondent Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi is represented by: James Richard Banko, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 300 Delaware Ave Ste 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (610) 544-3140 - and - Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Labaton Sucharow, LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 - and - Thomas Watson, Esq. Labaton Sucharow, LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 The Respondents RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc and TD Securities (USA) LLC are represented by: Kevin Thomas Kerns, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1650 Market St Ste 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 665-6912 - and - Scott Edelman, Esq. Milbank, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 BUMBLE TRADING: Out-of-State Plaintiffs' Claims in King Narrowed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NICK KING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BUMBLE TRADING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06868-NC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Bumble Trading, Inc. and Bumble Holding, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss out-of-state Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The Defendants own and operate a mobile software application "Bumble" that provides dating services for its users. Plaintiffs Nick King, Jr., Deena Fischer, Elena Weinberger, and Brian Wess accuse Bumble of violating New York and California law by failing to provide statutorily required disclaimers and contract provisions in connection with Bumble's premium service, "Bumble Boost." They seek to represent a nationwide class of Bumble Boost purchasers. On Sept. 9, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims in the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint. The Court denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in-state Plaintiffs' claims under New York law, but deferred ruling on whether the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over out-of-state Plaintiffs' claims to give the parties time to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Jurisdictional discovery is now complete. At issue is whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over the claims of the out-of-state named Plaintiff, Brian Wess, and those of absent out-of-state class members. The Defendants argue that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the claims of the out-of-state named Plaintiff, Brian Wess, and those of absent out-of-state class members. The Plaintiffs raise three arguments in response: (1) the Defendants waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction; (2) the Court has general jurisdiction; and (3) the Court has specific jurisdiction. As for the Plaintiffs' first argument, Magistrate Judge Cousins disagrees. That provision unambiguously refers to the user's waiver of personal jurisdiction. The word "you" is used throughout the Terms to specifically reference the user, not the Defendants. The provision limits the agreement to waive personal jurisdiction and venue to "you," and says nothing about personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants did not waive their challenge to personal jurisdiction through the Terms. Turning to the Plaintiffs' second argument, Judge Cousins finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown that Bumble Trading's principal place of business is in California. Likewise, as to Bumble Holding, the Plaintiffs merely point to corporate documents showing that some of its officers or shareholders live and work in California. But they provide no evidence suggesting that California is where Bumble Holding's "overall direction, control, and coordination" takes place. Accordingly, the Court does not have general jurisdiction over the Defendants. As for the Plaintiffs' third argument, Judge Cousins follow the Court's prior decision in Fitzhenry-Russell and finds that the Court has specific jurisdiction over the out-of-state class members' claims. Wess and the California named Plaintiffs all assert the same claims under the same New York laws. Their claims arise from the same nucleus of alleged facts. Requiring Wess to separately litigate his claims on an individual basis would be an extremely inefficient use of judicial resources and could subject Defendants to inconsistent obligations. As an alternative to dismissal, the Defendants request that the Court certifies the issue of personal jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal. The Plaintiffs oppose certification. Judge Cousins declines to certify the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The Judge does not find that an interlocutory appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The Plaintiffs also seek to represent California class members and the Defendants do not contest the Court's personal jurisdiction over their claims. Thus, even if the Ninth Circuit were to reverse the Court's finding of personal jurisdiction as to Wess and the out-of-state class members, the lawsuit would continue to march towards trial on every claim in the third amended complaint. In connection with their supplemental briefing on personal jurisdiction, both parties move to seal various declarations, exhibits, and portions of the Plaintiffs' brief referencing those documents. Those documents include a deposition transcript, corporate statements, discovery responses, and employment agreements. Judge Cousins finds that the documents sought to be sealed are only tangentially related to the merits of the case. Each document relates to the question of personal jurisdiction, not the underlying merits of Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. Thus, the "good cause" standard for sealing applies. The Magistrate finds that there is good cause to seal the documents in question. Each document contains non-public information relating to the Defendants' internal processes for decision making or employment terms. Revealing that information could cause Bumble to suffer competitive harm. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Cousins granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Wess. Wess is terminated as an individual Plaintiff. Judge Cousins also denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to absent out-of-state class members. The Judge declined to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal. The Judge granted both parties' motions to seal. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/gSppso from Leagle.com. Nick King, Jr., Deena Fischer & Elena Weinberger, Plaintiffs, represented by Grace E. Parasmo -- gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com -- Parasmo Lieberman Law, David Christopher Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens LLP, Suzanne Havens Beckman -- shavens@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens LLP & Yitzchak Hillel Lieberman, Parasmo Lieberman Law, 7400 Hollywood Blvd Apt 505, Los Angeles, CA 90046. Bumble Trading, Inc. & Bumble Holding, Ltd., Defendants, represented by Michael Graham Rhodes -- mrhodes@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kelsey R. Spector, Kyle Christopher Wong -- kwong@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Max Bernstein, Esq., Cooley LLP. CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended January 26, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS, is still pending. On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an amended consolidated complaint. The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are defendants in the Action. The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information about the company's business, operations, customer relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the Campbell Fresh segment. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Ramirez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTINA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV06608 (Filed Feb. 20, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 8, 2020. The Central District of Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03285 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages upon termination, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Capstone offers customized & integrated solutions to create efficiencies that reduce costs, enhance visibility & eliminate waste.[BN] Defendant Capstone is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Alexandra S. Oxyer, Esq. Justin T. Curley, Esq. Megha J. Charalambides, Esq. 233 S. Wacker Drive, 80th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com jriley@seyfarth.com aoxyer@seyfarth.com jcurley@seyfarth.com mcharalambides@seyfarth.com CB FLEET: Court Enters Protective Order in Allcott Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a Protective Order in the case, ALLYSON ALLCOTT and MICHELE PAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. C.B. FLEET COMPANY, INC., a Virginia corporation and PRESTIGE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01744 JVS (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.). The action is likely to involve trade secrets and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in the matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of the case. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as confidential or maintained pursuant to the Protective Order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. Accordingly, the terms of the Protective Order do not extend beyond the commencement of the trial. Any party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's Scheduling Order. If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Protected Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under the Stipulated Protective Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (1) notify in writing the Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (2) use its best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (3) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of the Order, and (4) request such person or persons to execute the "Acknowledgment and Agreement to be Bound." After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy, at the option of the Receiving Party, such material. As used in the subdivision, "all Protected Material" includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding the provision, the Counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to this Protective Order as set forth in Section V. Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary sanctions. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Protective Order is available at https://is.gd/WFO3mW from Leagle.com. Allyson Allcott, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated & Michele Paylor, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst and O'Reardon LLP, Anne Andrews -- aa@andrewsthornton.com -- Andrews and Thornton, Paula R. Brown -- pbrown@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst and O'Reardon LLP & Robert Sean Siko -- rsiko@andrewsthornton.com -- Andrews and Thornton. C.B. Fleet Company, Inc., a Virginia corporation & Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Melanie Atswei Ayerh -- mayerh@steptoe.com -- Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Anthony J. Anscombe -- aanscombe@steptoe.com -- Steptoe and Johnson LLP & Mary E. Buckley, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, pro hac vice. CH ROBINSON: Abuses Exclusive Sales Agreement, Lusk Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY LUSK, JASON LUSK, and JUSTIN LUSK, individually and d/b/a JTJ FARMS, and JMR FARMS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.; C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, INC.; and C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, Case No. 0:20-cv-00879-PJS-HB (D. Minn., April 3, 2020), arises from the Defendants' abuse of their exclusive sales agency obtained from the Plaintiffs for the sale of the fresh fruit and vegetables, which the Plaintiffs grew on their farms, in violation of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, state law, and the Parties' contracts. The Defendants' written contracts with the Plaintiffs concerned the growing, packing, and sale of fresh produce. The Defendants' compensation under the contracts was commissions from the consignment sales of the Plaintiffs' produce. The Defendants' used their special status as the Plaintiffs' exclusive agent pursuant to those contracts to obtain additional revenue arising out of or related to the growing, packing, and sale of the Plaintiffs' produce, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants reduced the net proceeds payable to the Plaintiffs by including deducting what was reported by the Defendants to be chargeable costs paid or payable by the Defendants under the contracts, but the amounts charged included undisclosed profits to the Defendants. C.H. Robinson is an American Fortune 500 provider of multimodal transportation services and third-party logistics. The Company offers freight transportation, transportation management, brokerage and warehousing. It offers truckload, less than truckload, air freight, intermodal, and ocean transportation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig A. Stokes, Esq. STOKES LAW OFFICE LLP 3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 225 San Antonio, TX 78218 Telephone: (210) 804-0011 E-mail: cstokes@stokeslawofffice.com CH ROBINSON: Court Certifies CSE Class in Dietrich FLSA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Taryn Dietrich, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18 C 4871 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. In her amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that she was hired in June 2013 by C.H. Robinson Worldwide ("CHRW"), a third-party transportation logistics company providing a combination of freight transportation services, logistics solutions, and supply chain services to companies through global transportation and distribution networks. The Plaintiff started as an Assistant Carrier Account Manager, also known as a Buyer, and later worked as a Carrier Account Manager and a Senior Carrier Account Manager ("CSEs"). The CSEs, including the Plaintiff while she was employed at CHRW, work in its North American Surface Transport business segment in Chicago. While the parties disagree on the specifics, they generally are in accord that these positions assist in providing logistical services, including booking loads of freight, with motor carriers across the country. The Plaintiff alleges that despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, she and the putative class members were not paid overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). The Plaintiff also alleges an individual claim for constructive discharge. The Court conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA on June 13, 2019, and eight individuals opted in, for a total of nine collective-action members. The Plaintiff now seeks certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) with respect to the IMWL claim. The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition: All persons who have been employed in the state of Illinois at C.H. Robinson as Assistant Carrier Account Managers, Buyers, Carrier Representatives, Carrier Account Managers, Senior Carrier Account Managers, Capacity Account Managers, and/or other similar positions, and who did not sign a C.H. Robinson arbitration agreement, at any time from three years before the filing of this action through and including the present. Judge Guzman finds that the proposed class has satisfied the commonality, typicality, adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and the predominance and the superiority requirements in Rule 23(b). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification, the Court rules. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/PI40rx from Leagle.com. Taryn Dietrich, on behalf of herself and a class of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jamie S. Franklin -- jsf@thefranklinlawfirm.com -- The Franklin Law Firm LLC, Robin B. Potter -- robin@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC, Maria De Las Nieves Bolanos -- nieves@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC & Patrick James Cowlin -- patrick@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC. C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Peter John Wozniak, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Andrew Douglas Welker, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christina Marie Janice -- cjanice@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Mark W. Wallin -- mark.wallin@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP & Michael Lawrence Demarino -- mdemarino@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS: Ayers Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA LOPICCOLO AYERS, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 19-CECG-4643, (Filed Dec. 26, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 6, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-at-00245 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges causes of action against Cherry Hill for violation of the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of salaried managers employed by Cherry Hill in California and a putative class of employees, who were compensated using payroll cards in California. Cherry Hill is doing business in experiential photography.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq. HONIGMAN LLP 2290 First National Building Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: 313-465-7000 Facsimile: 313-465-7373 E-mail: mdisbrow@honigman.com CIRCLE K STORES: Suaverdez Suit Removed to District of Colorado --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as REYNALDO SUAVERDEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. CIRCLE K STORES INC., Case No. 2020CV30639 (Filed March 15, 2020), was removed from the Colorado District Court, Arapahoe County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on April 10, 2020. The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01035 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the form of straight time and overtime wages for allegedly unpaid meal and rest breaks for a period of at least two years, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, pre-judgment, post-judgment and moratory interest, and statutory penalties in violations of the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act. Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larkin Reynolds, Esq. FOUNDRY LEGAL, LLC 3120 Blake Street, Suite A4 Denver, CO 80205 E-mail: LReynolds@Foundry.Legal - and - Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq. zDanielle Van Katwyk, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303 629 6200 Facsimile: 303 629 0200 E-mail: jharpole@littler.com dvankatwyk@littler.com CRESCENT CAPITAL: Alcentra Capital Faces Stockholder Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crescent Capital BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Alcentra Capital has been named as a defendant in several stockholder class action suits. On or about December 23, 2019, stockholders of Alcentra Capital filed two virtually identical stockholder class action complaints purportedly on behalf of holders of the common stock of Alcentra Capital against the members of Alcentra Capital's board of directors and certain former Alcentra Capital officers, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of Alcentra Capital by commencing a sales process allegedly in response to certain actions by Stilwell Value Partners VII, Stilwell Activist Fund, Stilwell Activist Investments, and Stilwell Associates, and by omitting allegedly material information concerning the transaction, the resignation of certain directors of Alcentra, and the financial analysis and fairness opinion of Houlihan Lokey from the joint proxy statement filed with the SEC on December 11, 2019 as part of the registration statement relating to the Alcentra Acquisition. The complaints seek to recover compensatory damages for all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Crescent said, "We assumed indemnification responsibilities owed by Alcentra to its former directors and officers with respect to this proceeding in connection with the Alcentra Acquisition. We believe that these claims are without merit." Crescent Capital BDC, Inc. is a business development company that seeks to maximize the total return of our stockholders in the form of current income and capital appreciation by providing capital solutions to companies with sound business fundamentals and strong growth prospects. The company is based in Los Angeles, California. CRUNCH LLC: Fox Suit Over Labor Claims Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH FOX, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CRUNCH, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CRUNCH NORCAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00276101 (Filed Feb. 24, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 3, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-at-00242 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges claims against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime; failure to pay meal period premiums; failure to pay rest period premiums; and unpaid minimum wages, in violation of the California Labor Code. Crunch is a full-spectrum fitness gym offering state-of-the-art equipment, personal training, and over 200 fitness classes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq. Mariko Mae Ashley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689.0430 E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com Mariko.Ashley@jacksonlewis.com CUSTOM WIRE: Fails to Properly Pay Operators, Jannette Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY JANNETTE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUSTOM WIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00516-LA (E.D. Wis., March 31, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful compensation system in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as an Operator at Defendant's Port Washington, Wisconsin location in approximately July 2014 and still currently working with an hourly rate of pay and a non-exempt employee in her entire employment with Defendant. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid and non-exempt employees were required by Defendant to clock-in and clock-out each work day via Defendant's electronic timekeeping system to record their actual hours worked and work performed. However, Defendant failed to compensate them for all hours worked according to the electronic timekeeping system's record. Custom Wire Technologies, Inc. is manufacturer of custom medical wire products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq James A. Walcheske, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304 Brookfield, WS 53005 Tel: (262)780-1953 Fax: (262)565-6469 Emails: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com CVS PHARMACY: Crowley Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE CROWLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. and KEVIN HOURICAN, Case No. 2083CV00088 (Filed Jan. 28, 2020), was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Plymouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 14, 2020. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10731 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts common law claims for breach of contract and a number claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act for alleged unpaid wages on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. CVS Pharmacy is a subsidiary of the American retail and health care company CVS Health, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anthony S. Califano, Esq. James J. Swartz, Jr., Esq. J. Stanton Hill, Esq. Ariel D. Fenster, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Seaport East, Suite 300 Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210-2028 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 E-mail: acalifano@seyfarth.com jswartz@seyfarth.com shill@seyfarth.com afenster@seyfarth.com D. HOUSTON INC: McMinn Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY MCMINN a/k/a CAMILLA/KAYMA an individual v. D. HOUSTON, INC. D/B/A TREASURES, ALI DAVARI, HASSAN DAVARI and BILL DOE individuals, Case No. 4:20-cv-01246 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2020), seeks to recover damages for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated resulting from the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2019 through July 2019. Throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff has been denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants scheme to classify the Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors", says the complaint. The Defendants own and operate a strip club named Treasures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com craft@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com DELTA DENTAL: Baldwin Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. Jack Baldwin, DDS v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-10576 (Filed Dec. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 10, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02203 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo. The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. Dr. Baldwin is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State of Minnesota. He is a member of Northwoods Dental, a dental practice located at 15600 36th Avenue N., in Plymouth, New Hampshire. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Renae D. Steiner, Esq. Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com vesades@heinsmills.com - and - Robert G. Eisler, Esq. Chad B. Holtzman, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com choltzman@gelaw.com - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com mzappala@bsfllp.com DELTA DENTAL: Braunstein Suit Moved from W.D. Ky. to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. David H. Braunstein v. Delta Dental Plans Association, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00915-DJH (Filed Dec. 16, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 9, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02200 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. According to the complaint, Delta Dental secured unlawful monopsony power through its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to: (1) restrict competition among the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market Allocation Conspiracy"); (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"); and (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy"). The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. These two conspiracies are buttressed by a third conspiracy: Defendants' Revenue Restriction Conspiracy takes the form of Defendants agreeing--via the Delta Dental Plan Agreement--that the Delta Dental State Insurers will limit the amount of revenue they derive from dental insurance sold other than under the "Delta Dental" brand, or that they will derive from administering "Delta Dental" plans. Dr. Braunstein is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State of Kentucky. He is a member of Arbor Ridge Family Dental, a dental practice located at 6402 Westwind Way, in Crestwood, Kentucky. Dr. Braunstein provided covered dental goods and services to consumers insured by Defendants pursuant to his in-network contract with Delta Dental of Kentucky. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Isaacson, Esq. Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq. David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com mzappala@bsfllp.com dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Robert G. Eisler, Esq. Chad B. Holtzman, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com choltzman@gelaw.com - and - Charles J. Cooper, Esq. Harold S. Reeves, Esq. COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com - and - Edward K. Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 Facsimile: (866) 747-3905 E-mail: Kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com - and - Mark K. Gray, Esq. Matthew L. White, Esq. GRAY & WHITE 9301 Dayflower Street, Suite 300 Prospect, KY 40059 Telephone: (502) 805-1800 Facsimile: (502) 618-4059 E-mail: Mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com Mwhite@grayandwhitelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lea Ann Smith, Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2700 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 299-7746 E-mail: leaann.smith@butlersnow.com DELTA DENTAL: DeVinney Suit Moved From California to Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Robin Dr. Jacob DeVinney, DDS v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 3:19-cv-08258 (Filed Dec. 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 14, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02199 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo. The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. Jacob DeVinney is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State of California. He is a member of Amador Dental and Orthodontic, a family dental practice located at 5000 Pleasanton Ave., in Pleasanton, California. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Birkhaeuser, Esq. BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 125 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Telephone: 925-945-0200 E-mail: dbirkhaeuser@bramsonplutzik.com - and - Timothy D. Battin, Esq. Shinae Kim-Helms, Esq. Nathan M. Cihlar, Esq. Joshua Q. Callister, Esq. STRAUS & BOIES, LLP 4041 University Drive, Fifth Floor Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 764-8700 Facsimile: (703) 764-8704 E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com skimhelms@straus-boies.com ncihlar@straus-boies.com jcallister@straus-boies.com DELTA DENTAL: Dickey Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. William Dickey, DMD v. Delta Dental Plans Association, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-910 DPJ-FKB (Filed Dec. 11, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 7, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02172 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E Bucklo. The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming, The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S. Dr. Dickey is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State of Mississippi. He is a member of Big River Dental, LLC, in Brandon, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. McGartland, Esq. Lee Rikard McGartland, Esq. MCGARTLAND LAW FIRM, PLLC University Centre I, Suite 500 1300 South University Drive Fort Worth, TX 76107 Telephone: (817) 332-9300 Facsimile: (817) 332-9301 E-mail: mike@mcgartland.com lee@mcgartland.com DELTA DENTAL: Drs. Lutins Suit Moved from M.D.N.C. to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Drs. Lutins & Benitez, P.A. v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 1:19-cv-01247 (Filed Dec. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 9, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02205 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. Drs. Lutins & Benitez, P.A., d/b/a Greensboro Perio, is a dental service provider located at 301 East Wendover Avenue, in Greensboro, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is part of DDNC's provider network and provides dental care services to subscribers to Delta Dental insurance coverage provided by DDNC. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq. Jeffrey S. Southerland, Esq. Scott C. GayleScott C. Gayle TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A. 100 N. Greene Street, Suite 600 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: 336 378 1431 Facsimile: 336 274 6590 E-mail: NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com JSoutherland@tuggleduggins.com SGayle@tuggleduggins.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Telephone: 973.623.3000 Facsimile: 973.623.0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com mreuben@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com DELTA DENTAL: Kottemann Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Kottemann Orthodontics, P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 0:19-cv-03139 (Filed Dec. 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 10, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02202 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo. The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. Kottemann Orthodontics is a dentistry professional association organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota with its principal office located in Maple Grove, Minnesota. The Plaintiff provided dental goods and services to consumers insured by Delta Dental pursuant to its in-network contract with Delta Dental of Minnesota. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. Melinda J. Morales, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe St., Ste. 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com jnb@wexlerwallace.com mjm@wexlerwallace.com The Defendants are represented by: William Michael, Jr., Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-7653 E-mail: wmichael@mayerbrown.com DELTA DENTAL: Mells Antitrust Suit Moved From Calif. to N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Robin Lambert Mells v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 3:19-cv-08182 (Filed, Dec. 16, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 13, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02198 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. Robin Lambert Mells of Robin Lambert Mells, D.D.S., is a dental services provider and citizen of the State of California. Mells' family dental practice is located at 1150 Scott Boulevard, in Santa Clara, California. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Judith A. Zahid, Esq. Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. Heather T. Rankie, Esq. James S. Dugan, Esq. ZELLE LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: jzahid@zelle.com cmicheletti @zelle.com hrankie@zelle.com jdugan@zelle.com - and - James R. Martin, Esq. Jennifer Duncan Hackett, Esq. ZELLE LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 899-4100 E-mail: jmartin@zelle.com jhackett@zelle.com DELTA DENTAL: Mincy Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. Catherine J. Mincy, DDS v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 1:19-cv-00227 (Filed Dec. 13, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 10, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02204 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. Dr. Mincy is a dental services provider and her office is located at 607 W. Church St., in Booneville, Mississippi. She is a citizen of the State of Mississippi. Dr. Mincy provided covered dental goods and services to consumers insured by the Defendants pursuant to her in-network contract with DDIC. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Hazzard, Esq. HAZZARD LAW, LLC 447 Northpark Drive Ridgeland, MS 391757 Telephone: (601) 977-5253 Facsimile: (601) 977-5253 E-mail: brent.hazzard@hazzardlaw.net - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq. David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com mzappala@bsfllp.com dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Robert G. Eisler, Esq. Chad B. Holtzman, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com choltzman@gelaw.com - and - Casey Lott, Esq. LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC 100 South Main Street Post Office Box 382 Booneville, MS 38829 Telephone: (662) 728-9733 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: clott@langstonlott.com - and - Charles J. Cooper, Esq. Harold S. Reeves, Esq. Davis Cooper, Esq. COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com - and - Edward K. Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 Facsimile: (866) 747-3905 E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com The Defendants are represented by: John Adam Crawford, Jr., Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP P. O. Box 6010 Ridgeland, MS 39158-6010 Telephone: (601) 948-5711 E-mail: jack.crawford@butlersnow.com DELTA DENTAL: Obeng Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Dr. Stephen N. Obeng, DMD v. Delta Dental Plans Association, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-25072-XXXX (Filed Dec. 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 7, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02171 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo. The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. According to the complaint, Delta Dental secured unlawful monopsony power through its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to: (1) restrict competition among the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market Allocation Conspiracy"); (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"); and (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy"). The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. These two conspiracies are buttressed by a third conspiracy: Defendants' Revenue Restriction Conspiracy takes the form of Defendants agreeing--via the Delta Dental Plan Agreement--that the Delta Dental State Insurers will limit the amount of revenue they derive from dental insurance sold other than under the "Delta Dental" brand, or that they will derive from administering "Delta Dental" plans. Dr. Obeng is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State of Florida. He is a member of Cooper Dental Group, a family dental practice located in Ormond Beach, Florida. Dr. Obeng provided covered dental goods and services to consumers insured by the Defendants pursuant to his in-network contract with DDIC. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Isaacson, Esq. Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com mzappala@bsfllp.com - and - David Boies, Esq. 55 Hudson Yards BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Robert G. Eisler, Esq. Chad B. Holtzman, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com choltzman@gelaw.com - and - Charles J. Cooper, Esq. Harold S. Reeves, Esq. Davis Cooper, Esq. COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com The Defendants are represented by: Jaime Abigail Quick, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S 7th St., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402-3924 Telephone: 612-766-7107 Facsimile: 612-766-1600 E-mail: jaime.quick@faegredrinker.com DELTA DENTAL: Schwartz Suit Moved from E.D. La. to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN C. SCHWARTZ, D.D.S., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-00018 (Filed Jan. 3, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 9, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02201 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. John C. Schwartz D.D.S., is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State of Louisiana. He is and was an owner and member a John C. Schwartz, D.D.S., a Professional Corporation, a dental practice located at 337 Metairie Rd., in Metairie Louisiana. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Isaacson, Esq. Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq. David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com mzappala@bsfllp.com dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Charles J. Cooper, Esq. Harold S. Reeves, Esq. COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com - and - Henry St. Paul Provosty, Esq. Edgar Dean Gankendorff, Esq. Eric R.G. Belin, Esq. PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, LLC 650 Poydras St., Suite 2700 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 410-2795 E-mail: hprovosty@provostylaw.com egankendorff@provostylaw.com ebelin@provostylaw.com - and - Edward Takashima, Esq. 401 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 752-2408 E-mail: etakashima@bsfllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel L. Ring, Esq MAYER BROWN, LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-8520 E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com DELTA DENTAL: Stephens Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM G. STEPHENS v. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-10576 (Filed Dec. 13, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 9, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02197 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's violations of federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United States. The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of Wyoming. The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories, multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. Dr. Stephens is a dental services provider and a citizen of the State of California. He is and was an owner and member of William G. Stephens DDS, Family Dental Care, a family dental practice located at 2801 Townsgate Road, in Westlake Village, California. Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Cooper, Esq. Harold S. Reeves, Esq. Davis Cooper, Esq. COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 220-9600 Facsimile: (202) 220-9601 E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com - and - Robert G. Eisler, Esq. Chad B. Holtzman, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER , P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: reiseler@gelaw.com choltzman@gelaw.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place N., Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com - and - Edward H. Takashima, Esq. B OIES S CHILLER F LEXNER LLP 401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 752-2400 Facsimile: (310) 752-2490 E-mail: etakashima@bsfllp.com - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq. David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com mzappala@bsfllp.com dboies@bsfllp.com - and - William A. Baird, Esq. BAIRD LAW FIRM 2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 267-1209 E-mail: w.baird.law@gmail.com DELTA-SONIC: Lennert et al. Seek Payment for Wait-Times, Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR LENNERT, MACKENZIE LENNERT, ADAM TUCKER, STEPHANIE WETZEL, RYEN SEYFRIED, and CHRISTINE MCCONNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. DELTA-SONIC CARWASH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00479 (W.D.N.Y., April 22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for subjecting Plaintiffs and Class members to frequent wait-times without any compensation, refusing to pay Plaintiffs for at least four hours when they commenced their shift at the carwash and were asked to leave before the completion of four hours, and paying them sub-minimum wages and wrong overtime rate in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs Taylor Lennert, Tucker and Seyfried worked for the Defendant as Delta technicians and advisors from March 2017 to March 2020, from April 2016 to October 2017, and from May or June 2016 until the summer of 2017, respectively. Plaintiffs Mackenzie Lennert, Wetzel and McConnell worked for the Defendant as Delta technicians from October 2018 to April 2019, from July 15, 2017 to February 13, 2019, and from May 2017 to June or July 2019, respectively. Delta-Sonic Carwash Systems, Inc. is an owner and operator of at least 28 full-service car wash locations in New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located at 570 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 406-6890 DEVA CONCEPTS: Consumers Sue Over Hair Care Product Side Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Priccilla Carpenter, Sydney Oliver, and Maha Abduselam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Deva Concepts, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00840 (D. Minn., March 30, 2020), seeks monetary, statutory and punitive damages, compensatory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, costs and fees incurred in connection with this action, including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs and such other and further relief resulting from breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and for violation of Minnesota's Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Unfair Trade Practices Act, Minnesota False Statement in Advertisement Act and consumer protections laws of various states. Deva produces hair care products for consumers with curly, super curly and wavy hair. Plaintiffs complained of hair loss, hair damage, balding and scalp injury when using these products. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq. David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Alia M. Abdi, Esq. 80 S 8th Street, Suite 1100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com alia.abdi@zimmreed.com DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE: Buchsbaum Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARDO BUCHSBAUM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; T-MOBILE USA, INC. a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00012175-CU-OE-CTL (Filed March 4, 2020), was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 13, 2020. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00706-BAS-AGS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant in California during the putative class period were denied meal and rest breaks, forced to work off the clock, paid less than minimum wage, denied overtime pay for hours worked in excess of eight per day, not reimbursed for all business expenses, not paid their allegedly due wages upon separation and were not provided accurate wage statements, in violation of the California Labor Code. Digital Intelligence provides managed staffing and IT consulting services. T-Mobile USA is an American wireless network operator.[BN] Defendant Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC, is represented by: Jennifer A. Kearns, Esq. Meredith P. Grant, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2900 San Diego, CA 92101-4681 Telephone: 619 744 2200 Facsimile: 619 744 2201 E-mail: jkearns@duanemorris.com mpgrant@duanemorris.com Defendant T-Mobile, USA, Inc., is represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: 858-652-3102 Telephone: 619-889-5051 E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com DOW JONES: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Horton Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing the case, ROBERT JEREMY HORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., DBA The Wall Street Journal, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Case Nos. 19-527 (L), 19-832 (XAP) (2d Cir.). In a putative class action complaint, Horton alleged on behalf of himself and other Wall Street Journal subscribers that Defendant Dow Jones sold personal information to third parties in violation of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act. Dow Jones, in turn, moved to compel arbitration of Horton's claims. The district court denied Dow Jones's motion but nevertheless dismissed the case. As relevant, the district court held that Horton was barred from proceeding on a class basis because he agreed to a class-waiver provision in his Wall Street Journal Subscriber Agreement, and the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Horton's individual state-law claim against Dow Jones. Horton appeals the dismissal of the case, and Dow Jones conditionally cross-appeals the denial of its motion to compel. Horton first argues that the district court deprived him of a fair opportunity to raise all arguments against the applicability and enforceability of the class-waiver provision. According to him, the district court "completely surprised" him because it failed to provide any notice that it was even considering a sua sponte dismissal based on the class-waiver provision, failed to provide him any opportunity to argue against such undisclosed, erroneous grounds for dismissal, and failed to provide any briefing or argument whatsoever on the issue. The Second Circuit holds that this argument is not supported by the record. Dow Jones' first and second motions to compel argued that Horton brought this action in violation of the class-waiver provision. Moreover, the district court issued an amended order on Jan. 18, 2019, in which it clearly signaled that it was considering dismissing the case on this basis. And Horton's letter responding to the district court's amended order confirms that he understood and addressed the possibility that the district court would dismiss on these grounds. Accordingly, the Second Circuit concludes that the district court afforded Horton a fair opportunity to present his arguments against the applicability and enforceability of the class-waiver provision. For similar reasons, the Second Circuit rejects Horton's argument that Dow Jones waived its right to enforce the class-waiver provision because it failed to timely assert the provision as a defense in an answer or responsive pleading to his complaint. As a preliminary matter, the district court adjourned Dow Jones' deadline to answer the complaint sine die pending resolution of its motion to compel arbitration. Furthermore, Dow Jones argued in its first and second motions to compel arbitration that the class-waiver provision barred Horton from proceeding on a class basis. Horton next argues that the district court erred in holding that the class-waiver provision barred him from proceeding on a class basis. As noted, Horton agreed to the class-waiver provision in his Wall Street Journal Subscriber Agreement, which is governed by New York law. Under New York law, a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms. Courts are obliged to interpret a contract so as to give meaning to all of its terms, and to avoid interpretations that "render any portion meaningless." And a contractual proscription against class actions is neither unconscionable nor violative of public policy. Notwithstanding Horton's arguments to the contrary, the plain meaning of the class-waiver provision bars Horton from proceeding on a class basis. Horton contends that because the class-waiver provision appears in the Agreement to Arbitrate section, it bars only class actions in disputes that are otherwise arbitrable. But as the district court explained, the provision bars both "class arbitrations and class actions," and a reading that confines the prohibition on class litigation to arbitration would render meaningless the phrase and class actions. Moreover, because the section provides that by entering into the Agreement, one is giving up the ability to participate in a class action, and because "this Agreement" refers to the entire Subscriber Agreement, the class-waiver provision is best read as applying to both litigation and arbitration. The Second Circuit also disagrees with Horton's argument that the class-waiver provision did not survive termination of the Subscriber Agreement. The Agreement to Arbitrate section specifies that the agreement to arbitrate will survive termination of the Subscriber Agreement. Because the agreement to arbitrate is most naturally read to refer to the entire Agreement to Arbitrate section, and because the Agreement to Arbitrate section contains the class-waiver provision, the Second Circuit concludes that the class-waiver provision survives termination of the Subscriber Agreement. Finally, the Second Circuit agrees with the district court's decision not to exercise jurisdiction over Horton's individual state-law claim after it concluded that Horton could not proceed on a class basis. The Second Circuit has previously rejected the position that district courts, on finding that a case cannot proceed as a class action, must adjudicate state law claims rather than remand them to state court. Instead, the Second Circuit has explained, they can also, of course, dismiss them without prejudice for consideration in state courts. In the case, the district court appropriately dismissed Horton's individual state-law claim without prejudice after holding that the class-waiver provision barred him from seeking class relief. The Second Circuit has considered Horton's remaining arguments on appeal and has found in them no basis for reversal. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and Dow Jones' conditional cross-appeal is dismissed as moot. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's April 1, 2020 Summary Order is available at https://is.gd/qs92DB from Leagle.com. FRANK S. HEDIN -- fhedin@careyrodriguez.com -- Hedin Hall LLP, Miami, FL; Thomas L. Laughlin, IV -- TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- (on the brief), Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. NATALIE J. SPEARS -- natalie.spears@dentons.com -- (Sandra D. Hauser -- sandra.hauser@dentons.com -- Kristen C. Rodriguez -- kristen.rodriguez@dentons.com -- on the brief), Dentons US LLP, Chicago, IL and New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. DUNWORTH CONSTRUCTION: Gizze Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY GIZZE v. DUNWORTH CONSRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC., and ROY F. DUNWORTH, Case No. 9:20-cv-80593-DMM (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2020), seeks to recover overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, often another person was at any job site to whom Mr. Gizze and all others reported. When such a person was absent, Mr. Gizze often had seniority but had to obtain approval for virtually any act which required the exercise of discretion. During this period, Mr. Gizze was never paid overtime. The Plaintiff contends that he was employed by the Defendants on a construction crew since January 2019. His timesheets note a position as "laborer" or "foreman." In fact, he was never a "foreman." He asserts that he never had the duties, responsibilities, discretion, or authority. Dunworth Construction is a Palm Beach County certified and Florida licensed contractor and construction business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Address, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STUART M. ADDRESS, P.A. 611 S.W. Federal Highway, Suite A Stuart, FL 34994 Telephone: (772) 781-8003 Facsimile: (772) 781-8005 E-mail: stuart@stuartaddresslaw.com ELI LILLY: Rochester Drug Hits Insulin Price-rigging ---------------------------------------------------- Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eli Lilly And Company, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, CVS Health Corporation, CareMarkPCS Health LLC, Caremark LLC, CareMark Rx LLC, Express Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts Inc., Medco Health Solutions Inc., United Health Group Incorporated, United Healthcare Services Inc., Optum Inc., Optumrx Holdings, Llc, And Optumrx Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03426, (D. N.J., March 30, 2020), seeks to recover overcharges due to the artificial inflation of prices for the analog Insulin medication in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Insulin glargine is a long-acting analog insulin for management of diabetes. Defendants commercially sell analog Insulin medications under the Humalog, Basaglar, Fiasp, Novolog, Levemir, Tresiba, Apidra, Lantus and Toujeo brands. Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC are pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and sell insulin while CVS Health Corporation, CaremarkPCS Health, LLC, Caremark LLC, Caremark Rx LLC, Express Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts, Inc., Medco Health Solutions, Inc., United Health Group Incorporated, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Optum, Inc., OptumRx Holdings, LLC and OptumRx, Inc. are pharmacy benefit managers who negotiate rebates with drug manufacturers. Rochester Drug Co-Operative claims that the pharmacy benefit managers negotiated an onerous deal with the insulin manufacturers that allowed them to pocket a profit to Rochester's disadvantage.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Sorensen, Esq. Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Email: dsorensen@bm.net ccoslett@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 Tel: (215) 277-5770 Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com - and - David Golub, Esq. Steven Bloch, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street Stamford, CT 06901 Tel: (203) 325-4491 Email: dgolub@sgtlaw.com sbloch@sgtlaw.com - and - Russ Chorush, Esq. HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP 1111 Bagby, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 221-2000 Email: rchorush@hpcllp.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Noah Silverman, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 398-0055 Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com nsilverman@garwingerstein.com - and - Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 522-0077 Email: stuart@odrlaw.com - and - Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP 221 Ansley Blvd. Alexandria, LA 71303 Tel: (318) 445-4480 Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com EQUITI US: Faces Motes Suit Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MOTES v. EQUITI US LLC and EQUITI CAPITAL UK LIMITED, Case No. 9:20-cv-80599-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants knowingly aided their prime brokerage client--a fraudulent investment fund called Mediatrix--to deceive investors that its trading strategy had resulted in massive gains when, in fact, the opposite was true. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knew Mediatrix was using Equiti software and reports to mislead investors. The Defendants also knew Mediatrix suffered enormous losses, yet continued to deposit more investor moneys in its Equiti accounts. But the Defendants continued to enable the fraud. While the Defendants collected nearly $13 million in fees from Mediatrix's trading activities, the investor-class lost tens of millions of dollars. Mediatrix perpetrated a massive investment fraud on its investors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the putative class suffered losses of tens of millions of dollars in connection with their investments in Mediatrix's Managed Account Foreign Exchange Fund and the Fund, both of which Mediatrix Capital purportedly managed. Equiti, formerly known as Divisa Capital is an institutional Forex broker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott L. Silver, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755-4799 Facsimile: (954) 755-4684 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com - and - Jared A. Levy, Esq. Aiman Farooq, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 2125 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 227-5858 Facsimile: (561) 227-5857 E-mail: JLevy@forthepeople.com AFarooq@forthepeople.com - and - James D. Sallah, Esq. Joshua A. Katz, Esq. SALLAH ASTARITA & COX LLC 3010 North Military Trail, Suite 210 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 989-9080 Facsimile: (561) 989-9020 E-mail: jds@sallahlaw.com jak@sallahlaw.com EVENTS AND ADVENTURES: Carisi Sues Over Membership Fee Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- IAN CARISI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVENTS AND ADVENTURES CALIFORNIA and ADVENTURES NORTHWEST, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02260-SK (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged unconscionable decision to keep charging its tens of thousands of customers monthly membership fees while cancelling 100% of their in-person "events and adventures" as the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rages throughout the world and the United States economy has gone into a deep recession. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants continued charging their members monthly fees--at full price. He adds that the Defendants are able to unilaterally charge its customers monthly fees without their consent, as it is in possession of its customers' debit card, credit card, or bank information. Thus, the Defendants have made the deliberate decision to bilk their customers out of millions of dollars while not providing the sole services its members signed up and contracted to pay for – in person events, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law for breach of express warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and breach of contract. The Defendants operate a members-only "singles" event company that hosts and organizes in person events for singles looking to meet other singles in person through group outings, such as white water rafting or wine tasting. Both Defendants do business as "Events and Adventures."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com scott@bursor.com FAULT LINE LOGISTICS: Vargas Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as RUBEN VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAULT LINE LOGISTICS, LLC and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV05604 (Filed Feb. 13, 2020), was removed from the the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 11, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03438 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that he (along with the putative class) was misclassified over a period of greater than four years. He adds that stemming from this misclassification, he seeks unpaid wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. Fault Line is doing business in the intermodal industry.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq. MICHAEL J. HOLECEK, Esq. THOMAS F. COCHRANE, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 Telephone: 415.393.8200 Facsimile: 415.393.8306 E-mail: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com mholecek@gibsondunn.com tcochrane@gibsondunn.com FORD MOTOR: Wins Summary Judgment in Beaty Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, JACOB and JESSICA BEATY, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C17-5201RBL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment. Beaty purchased a 2013 Ford Escape with a panoramic glass sun roof ("PSR") in September 2012. She claims her Escape's PSR spontaneously shattered while she was driving on the freeway in February 2017, due to a manufacturing defect common to a wide range of Ford vehicles. She claims that Ford PSRs' tempered glass is too thin, leading to failure. She sued, seeking to represent a class of purchasers of such vehicles. She asserts claims fraudulent concealment and breach of Washington's Consumer Protection Act, based on her allegation that Ford knew about and concealed the defect. Ford seeks summary judgment on both of Beaty's claims, arguing: (1) There is no "defect," because PSRs' tempered glass breaks in the exact way the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard specifies it must break: into small, round pieces rather than in shards that can cause far more serious injuries; (2) The 2013 Escape was the first model year to include a PSR, and Beaty bought hers at the very beginning of production. Ford could not have "known," much less concealed, the defect (an unreasonably high PSR failure rate) at the time she purchased, as a matter of law. It therefore had no duty to disclose the claimed defect to Beaty; (3) The allegedly known and concealed defect would not have been material to a purchaser, given its extremely low (0.05%) occurrence rate. Ford argues a failure rate below 1% is not material as a matter of law; and (4) Beaty cannot demonstrate her claimed benefit-of-the-bargain damages as a matter of law. Beaty's experts have not yet performed their "conjoint analysis survey" to determine the difference in market value between an Escape as represented (with PSR that will not fail), and the one Beaty bought (with a PSR that will fail at a 0.05% rate). Ford claims the proposed conjoint analysis does not and cannot account for the supply side of the fair market value equation. Judge Leighton holds that even assuming that the Escape's PSR shattering is a material defect, and even if Ford would be required to disclose it to potential purchasers, Beaty has not met her summary judgment burden of providing evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that Ford knew about alleged PSR defect when Beaty purchased her 2013 Escape in September 2012. On Ford's duty to disclose the defect, the Court finds that even if Ford had knowledge of a defect, its corresponding duty to disclose necessarily depends on whether that defect -- the risk that the PSR might shatter, and the consequences of it doing so -- is material. The duty to disclose arise in situations where the seller has knowledge of a material fact not easily discovered by the buyer. Ford also demonstrates that its failure rates are low by industry standards. Beaty's claim that there are hundreds of similar complaints does not address or rebut the failure rate, and even her own expert's claimed "PSR replacement rate" of 0.41% is still within the range of other manufacturers and lower than some competitors. The Court is not willing to adopt the Third Circuit's "bright line" 1% threshold, and it is not willing to hold broadly that any failure is not material if it is similar to failure rates in comparable products. A truly dangerous failure is material even if it is rare, and in a different case a duty to disclose a material defect may arise even if the defect occurs only infrequently. But viewed in the NHTSA's "severity, frequency and consequences" context, the actual failure rates, and the evidence in the record, the Judge cannot conclude that the defect at issue here was material, if it was a defect at all. Hence, Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment on its claim that the PSR is not a material defect is granted, the Court rules. In light of these holdings, the Court need not delve deeply into Ford's final argument, regarding the evidentiary support for the fact and measure of Beaty's and her class's claimed damages. Ford argues that Beaty has no evidence of her claimed benefit-of-the-bargain damages, because her expert's proposed conjoint analysis survey should have already been performed, and even if it had, it would be flawed and inadmissible. A conjoint analysis that does not (and perhaps cannot) account for factors in a functioning marketplace other than consumers' willingness to pay is not competent evidence of the quantum of damages. It is worth noting that the better-reasoned cases reject the sort of damages calculations that Beaty's expert proposes. Such a determination would not address Beaty's alternate, out-of-pocket damages claim. Judge Leighton concludes that Beaty cannot establish the elements of her fraudulent concealment or Washington CPA claims against Ford as a matter of law: she cannot show that Ford knew of and failed to disclose a material defect. She cannot establish that any such failure caused her benefit-of-the-bargain damage. For these reasons, the Judge granted Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice Beaty's fraudulent concealment and CPA claims. The Judge denied as moot all other pending motions. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/JD6SsB from Leagle.com. Jacob Beaty & Jessica Beaty, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam A. Edwards -- adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac vice, Amanda M. Steiner -- asteiner@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Eric S. Johnson, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac vice, Lisa A. White, GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac vice, Mark E. Silvey -- mark@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr. -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC, pro hac vice & Benjamin Drachler, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Brett Thomas MacIntyre, STOKES LAWRENCE PS, Caryn Geraghty Jorgensen, STOKES LAWRENCE PS, John T. Fetters, STOKES LAWRENCE PS, Bradley W. Petersen, SLATTERY PETERSEN PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari K. Dawson -- cari.dawson@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice, Kyle G.A. Wallace -- kyle.wallace@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice & Sherry A. Rozell -- sherry.rozell@mcafeetaft.com -- MCAFEE & TAFT, pro hac vice. FUSION INDUSTRIES: Garza Suit Moved From D.N.M. to W.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER GARZA, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FUSION INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00072 (Filed Jan. 24, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on April 11, 2020. The Western District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00336-D to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant required him to work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. He contends that the Defendant misclassified him and other similarly situated workers as independent contractors instead of as employees. By misclassifying them as independent contractors, the Defendant illegally denied them compensation at time and one half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, he adds. Fusion is an electrical engineering, design, procurement, and construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: DFoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Daniel M. Faber, Esq. 4620C Jefferson Lane NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 Telephone: (505) 830-0405 E-mail: dan@danielfaber.com The Defendant is represented by: Charlotte A. Lamont, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 201 Third Street NW, Suite 500 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 944-9680 Facsimile: (505) 944-9681 GENERAL MOTORS: Claims of 5 Out-of-State Plaintiffs in Sloan Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MONTEVILLE SLOAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) granted the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, and (ii) dismissed the claims of Plaintiffs Edwin and Katelyn Doepel, Dennis Vita, William Martell, and Kelly Harris. The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in the case on Aug. 31, 2017. The SAC added five new Plaintiffs: Illinois Plaintiffs Edwin and Katelyn Doepel, New York Plaintiff Vita, Oregon Plaintiff Martell, and Washington Plaintiff Harris. GM filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing, among other things, that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the claims of non-California Plaintiffs, including the newly added Plaintiffs from Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington. On Feb. 7, 2018, after extensive supplemental briefing, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part that motion. In that order, the Court concluded that the existence of federal question jurisdiction precluded the application of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California; the Court therefore found it proper to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over the claims of the newly added non-California Plaintiffs. In July 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, which added a Plaintiff from Ohio. GM moved to dismiss the claims of the Ohio Plaintiff for lack of personal jurisdiction. On Dec. 5, 2019, the Court dismissed the claims of the Ohio Plaintiff on the grounds that it lacked personal jurisdiction over those claims. In so doing, the Court noted first that there is no federal question furnishing federal question jurisdiction as it relates to Plaintiff Szep's claims. Federal question jurisdiction had not been pled by Plaintiffs, and the Ohio Plaintiff had no viable Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim. Next, the Court observed that nearly every court considering the issue has concluded pendent party jurisdiction cannot be exercised by a federal court sitting in diversity. Because pendent party jurisdiction was the sole basis for personal jurisdiction advanced by the Plaintiffs, the Court concluded that because it would be inappropriate to exercise pendent party jurisdiction, the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the claims of the Ohio Plaintiff. GM now seeks reconsideration of that issue, in light of the Court's order from Dec. 5, 2019. The Plaintiffs effectively concede that-- in light of the Court's order dismissing the claims of the Ohio Plaintiff -- the claims of Illinois Plaintiffs Edwin and Katelyn Doepel, Oregon Plaintiff Martell, and Washington Plaintiff Harris should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, they contend that New York Plaintiff Vita has a valid claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which raises a federal question that permits the Court to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff Vita's claims notwithstanding Bristol-Myers. Thus, Plaintiffs argue that GM's Motion should, at minimum, be denied with respect to Plaintiff Vita. Judge Chen holds that the Plaintiffs' argument is unpersuasive. The Plaintiffs have only pled diversity jurisdiction. It is consistent with the fact that CAFA constituted an expansion of diversity jurisdiction; it does not, on its own, purport to establish federal question jurisdiction. Indeed, several courts have recognized the distinction between diversity jurisdiction under CAFA and federal question jurisdiction furnished by MMWA claims. Consequently, even if Plaintiff Vita is able to assert a viable MMWA claim in this case by virtue of CAFA, that claim would not furnish federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is not a basis, under current law, to distinguish Bristol-Myers. Accordingly, Jujdge Chen granted the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, and dismissed the of Plaintiffs Edwin and Katelyn Doepel, Vita, Martell, and Harris. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/Aa3gDV from Leagle.com. Monteville Sloan, Jr., Raul Siqueiros, Donald Ludington, Thomas Shorter, Gabriel Del Valle & Steven Ehrke, Plaintiffs, represented by Lori Erin Andrus -- lori@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew England Brashier -- andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia -- Anthony@aglawinc.com -- AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, 218 Commerce St. PO Box 4160, Montgomery, AL 36103, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri -- dferri@dlcfirm.com - - DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III -- clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon -- jshannon@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A. DiCello -- madicello@dlcfirm.com -- The DiCello Law Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker -- tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson -- jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP. Joseph Brannan, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Marybeth V. Gibson, The Finley Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP. Gail Lannom, Bradley K. Zierke, Ross Dahl, Drew Peterson, Barbara Molina, Bill Mauch, Thomas Gulling & Ronald Jones, Plaintiffs, represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Marybeth V. Gibson, The Finley Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP. John Graziano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice & Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. Rudy Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP. Mike Warpinski, Marc Perkins, Joseph Olivier, Christopher Thacker, Derick Bradford, Larry Goodwin, James Robertson, Joshua Byrge, Randy Clausen, Steve Kitchen, Ted Edgecomb, Kevin Hanneken, Michael Ware, Scott Smith, John Neubauer, James Faulkner & Dan Madson, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP. Jonas Bednarek, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Eric J. Haag, Atterbury Kammer Haag S.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP. Doepel Katelyn, Plaintiff, represented by Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP & Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC. Katelyn Doepel, Todd Cralley, Jill Cralley, Dennis Vita, Edwin Doepel, Kelly Harris & William Martell, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP & Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC. General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph John Ybarra -- Joseph.Ybarra@hygmlaw.com -- Huang Ybarra Gelberg & May LLP & Gregory Richard Oxford -- goxford@iccolaw.com -- Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP. GEORGIA: Walters Sues Challenging Ban on Carrying Guns in Public ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Walters, an individual; SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; and, FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC., and similarly situated individuals v. BRIAN KEMP, in his official capacity as the Governor of Georgia; GARY VOWELL, in his official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety and Colonel of the Georgia State Patrol; THE COUNTY OF CHEROKEE, GEORGIA; and KEITH WOOD, in his official Capacity as Judge of the Probate Court of Cherokee County, Case No. 1:20-cv-01624-JPB (N.D. Ga., April 16, 2020), seeks to redress the deprivation under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of Georgia, of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution. The Plaintiff asserts that she--a law-abiding member of her community and member of the Plaintiffs SAF and FPC, and similarly situated individuals, who are not prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms under state and federal law--has a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right to carry loaded, operable handguns on their person, outside their homes, vehicles, and place of business, in public, for self-defense. But because of the Defendants' laws, orders, and enforcement of them, she and others cannot exercise that right. In Georgia, unless specifically exempted, the conduct of carrying a loaded, operable handgun on the person in public--outside the limited boundaries of a person's home, personal vehicle, or place of business is absolutely banned. One exemption to most criminal laws is a "Georgia Weapon License" ("GWL") issued by the probate judge of a person's county of residence. The State of Georgia and law enforcement officers, under the ultimate direction of Defendant Vowell, and prosecutors within it routinely enforce O.C.G.A. against individuals otherwise legally eligible to possess and acquire handguns, who carry such weapons in public, outside the limited confines of their homes, cars, or workplaces, without a validly issued GWL. The Legislature has provided no findings or declarations to support any legitimate government interest for creating such special exemptions while denying other law-abiding, responsible citizens, like Plaintiff Walters, the ability to lawfully exercise their constitutional right to freely carry a handgun in public, says the complaint. Even if the State's general ban scheme were to be declared unconstitutional and enjoined, as the Plaintiffs seek as to its application against law-abiding individuals like Plaintiff Walters and others like her, the State and law enforcement within it have other statutes available to them under which to arrest and publish specific or dangerous conduct. Plaintiff Walters is a member and supporter of Plaintiffs Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. Brian Kemp is the elected Governor of the State of Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Monroe, Esq. JOHN MONROE LAW, P.C. 156 Robert Jones Road Dawsonville, GA 30534 Phone: 678-362-7650 Email: jrm@johnmonroelaw.com - and - Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, Esq. THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C. 4320 Southport-Supply Road, Suite 300 Southport, NC 28461 Phone: 910-713-8804 Fax: 910-672-7705 Email: law.rmd@gmail.com - and - Adam Kraut, Esq. FIREARMS POLICY COALITION 1215 K Street, 17th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 476-2342 Email: akraut@fpclaw.org GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Maroney Sues Over Defective SlimFast Oil ------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY MARONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLANBIA PERFORMANCE NUTRITION, INC. d/b/a SLIMFAST, Case No. 7:20-cv-02788-CS (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for selling a defective dietary supplement product, SlimFast Keto MCT Oil, through its SlimFast brand. The Plaintiff contends that the Product contains "100% Pure Coconut Oil" and bears the representation "Clinically Proven Lose Weight & Keep It Off," but that representation is not true. The Plaintiff asserts that a 2018 peer-reviewed study found "no evidence of difference in mean weight, BMI, or per cent body fat" associated with the use of coconut oil. And far from being "clinically proven" to cause weight loss, a 2015 meta-analysis concluded that "further research is required to confirm the efficacy of MCT" because "many trials lacked sufficient information" and "commercial bias was detected." In July 2018, the Plaintiff purchased a container of Glanbia's SlimFast MCT product for approx $10 from Wal-Mart in Middletown, New York. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and purchasers of the SlimFast MCT dietary supplements. Glanbia sells lifestyle nutrition products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com GYK DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Workers Under FLSA & NJWPL, Romero Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elmer Romero, Kevin Ochoa, and Alirio Pereira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GYK DRYWALL, INC., CEIBA SERVICES LLC, ALLSTATE INTERIORS, INC., and DANILO VALLE, Case No. 2:20-cv-04378 (D.N.J., April 16, 2020), seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and for breach of contract. According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed the Plaintiffs by engaging in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA and the NJWPL. This policy and pattern or practice includes, inter alia, failing to pay employees the applicable overtime rates for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers and drivers. GYK and Ceiba are construction companies that provide labor and related services for drywall installation and other construction tasks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Sackowitz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Belin Suit ------------------------------------------------ Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a proposed class action suit entitled, Belin et. al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et. al., Case No. 19-cv-61430. Separate from the Federal Trade Commission v. Simple Health Plans, et al. case against Simple Health, a proposed class action, but not yet certified, styled as Belin et. al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et. al., Case No. 19-cv-61430, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 7, 2019. The case alleges that the Company conspired with Simple Health using a theory of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act along with other claims and seeks unspecified damages. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was partially denied and the Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based technology platform and distributor of individual and family health insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based in Tampa, Florida. HEALTH INSURANCE: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Florida Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action suit spearheaded by Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System. On February 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled Julian Keippel v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael D. Hershberger, Case No. 8:19-cv-00421, was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer, and chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. According to the complaint, the plaintiff in the action is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of a putative class of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the period February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions during the purported class period relating to the Company's relationship with third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health Plans and affiliates. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed to disclose to investors that a substantial portion of the Company's revenues were derived from third parties who allegedly used deceptive tactics to sell the Company's products and that regulatory scrutiny of such third parties would materially impact the Company's operations. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act. On May 13, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiff Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System and lead counsel Saxena White P.A. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 19, 2019. The consolidated complaint incorporated the allegations from the first complaint and added allegations of alleged materially false or misleading statements or material omissions relating to alleged deficiencies in the Company's compliance and customer service programs and the number of complaints the Company received from consumers relating to third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health and affiliates. The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales by Messrs. Southwell and Hershberger. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative classes of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during a purported class period of September 25, 2017 through April 11, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the action, which the court denied on November 4, 2019, and the case is currently in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based technology platform and distributor of individual and family health insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based in Tampa, Florida. IRWIN INDUSTRIES: Williams May File Second Amended Labor Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CARL CURTIS; ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC.; DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02480-ODW (Ex) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint ("SAC"). The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant Irwin Industries. The Defendant employed both the Plaintiffs prior to approximately April 7, 2014. Both the Plaintiffs worked on an oil platform off the California coast, working shifts typically lasting seven days. Plaintiffs allege that they received pay for 12 hours each day but could not reasonably leave the platform during their seven-day shifts. Thus, in February 2015, they initiated the wage and hour putative class action. They filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on April 1, 2015. Under the FAC, the Plaintiffs assert claims under California law, individually and on behalf of a putative class, for (1) Minimum Wage Violations; (2) Pay Stub Violations; (3) Unfair Competition; (4) Failure to Timely Pay Wages at Termination; (5) Failure to Provide Lawful Meal and Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Pay Overtime and Doubletime Premium Wages; and (7) Civil Penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Plaintiffs defined the class to include the Defendant's hourly employees who, at any time within four years from the date of filing the action, worked on oil platforms off of the California coast for periods of 24 consecutive hours or more. On Nov. 12, 2015, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the FAC. The Court found the Plaintiffs' claims preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") because they required interpretation of collective bargaining agreements ("CBA") entered into between the parties, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and ordered the parties to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the CBAs. The Court subsequently granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, affirming dismissal of all claims but withdrawing the portion of the order compelling the parties to arbitration. On Jan. 25, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded the case in part. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that the Plaintiffs' overtime claim was preempted under Section 301 of the LMRA, because the CBA terms triggered the exemption under California Labor Code section 514. The Ninth Circuit remanded the Plaintiffs' remaining meal and rest period and minimum wage claims, along with the four derivative claims (pay stubs, unfair business practices, final wages, and PAGA) because issues of preemption under both Section 301 of the LMRA and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") remained. The Ninth Circuit denied the Plaintiffs' petition for panel rehearing and issued the Mandate on March 15, 2019. Following the Ninth Circuit's Mandate, the Court stayed the matter pending the Supreme Court's decision in Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v. Newton, which addressed whether federal law (pursuant to the OCSLA) or California law applies to Plaintiffs' claims, an issue the parties recognized as potentially dispositive on remand. On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Parker Drilling case. The Supreme Court addressed whether federal law or California law applies to wage and hour claims made by employees who work on drilling platforms off the coast of California, on the Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS"). It found the plaintiff's wage and hour claims premised on the adoption of California law requiring payment for all time that the plaintiff spent on standby were already addressed by federal law under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Likewise, to the extent the plaintiff's OCS-based claims rely on the adoption of the California minimum wage the FLSA already provides for a minimum wage so the California minimum wage does not apply. Thus, those California laws were unavailable on the OCS and the plaintiff's California overtime and minimum wage claims failed. As the plaintiff's other California wage and hour claims had not been analyzed by lower courts or in the parties' briefing, the Supreme Court did not specifically address them and remanded the matter to the lower court. Following the decision in Parker Drilling, the District Court in Irwin permitted the Plaintiffs to move for leave to file an amended Complaint. Accordingly, on Aug. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the Motion. The Plaintiffs contend that Parker Drilling only negatively impacts their claims for California overtime/double-time and minimum wage violations and that their other claims (meal breaks, rest breaks, paystub, waiting-time penalties, unfair competition and PAGA)" should survive. Further, the Plaintiffs argue that while their overtime claims under California law are no longer viable, they should be granted leave to assert overtime claims under the FLSA. The Defendant opposes the Plaintiffs' Motion, argueing that the Plaintiffs are merely attempting to assert claims that they strategically elected not to raise back in 2015 and it constitutes a bad faith tactical measure that will prejudice it and cause undue delay. The Defendant contends the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment is futile because (1) the FLSA claim is time-barred and does not relate back to the original Complaint and (2) Parker Drilling requires dismissal of the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. Judge Wright holds that an FLSA plaintiff is procedurally unable to claim the relation back doctrine to overcome the time-bar set by the statute of limitations. As such, the Plaintiffs may not claim relation-back to save their FLSA claim. As the Plaintiffs have not filed a written consent and the time for commencing an FLSA action elapsed in April 2017, their FLSA claim is time barred and amendment would be futile. Accordingly, Judge Wright denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to add an FLSA claim. Judge Wright also finds that the Defendant has not satisfied its burden to show that amendment of the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims should not be granted. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint amending only their remaining state law claims. Any amendment strictly beyond the scope herein permitted is subject to strike. For the reasons stated, Judge Wright granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of Judge Wright's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/0V39kL from Leagle.com. Arthur Williams, an individual & Carl Curtis, an individual, Plaintiffs, represented by Aris Edmund Karakalos -- aris@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and Strauss APC, Michael Anthony Strauss -- mike@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss and Palay APC, Andrew Clayton Ellison, Strauss and Palay APC & Anthony R. Strauss, Strauss Law Group APC. Irwin Industries, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Lewis, Payne and Fears LLP, Ronald J. Holland, II -- rjholland@mwe.com -- McDermott Will and Emery LLP & Ellen M. Bronchetti -- ebronchetti@mwe.com -- McDermott Will and Emery LLP. JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Roman Seeks Damages From Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ Josephine Marie Roman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-01829 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2020), is brought for breach of contract damages or, in the alternative, specific performance of the contract's refund terms, based on the Defendant's breaches of its contract, including its Passenger Bill of Rights. This year, JetBlue has responded to a sudden drop in demand for passenger air travel by canceling scores of scheduled flights. Under the terms of its contract, when JetBlue cancels a flight, it must either re-accommodate passengers on the next available flight or refund the passengers in full. JetBlue has breached its contracts with thousands of paying customers by offering credits for future travel on JetBlue instead of providing refunds. Despite JetBlue's suggestion in its public press release that it is giving consumers the "choice" of a refund or a credit (which is contrary to its own contractual obligations), it is not, in fact, giving consumers refunds when requested. Instead, the Plaintiff says, it is unilaterally giving consumers a credit only. Thus, JetBlue's failure to provide prompt refunds for canceled flights violates not only its own contract, but also federal law. On March 10, 2020, the Plaintiff received an email from JetBlue informing her that her March 19 flight to JFK had been canceled. In this cancellation email, JetBlue did not offer to rebook the Plaintiff on the next available flight. Nor did JetBlue offer Plaintiff a refund of the fare she paid for the flight. In sum, despite the fact that the Plaintiff could not take the flight she booked because JetBlue canceled it, JetBlue failed to provide a refund to the Plaintiff and, instead, only offered the Plaintiff a credit for use on a future JetBlue flight, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a round-trip ticket for travel from Orlando, Florida, to JFK airport in New York City, on March 19, 2020, and a return flight from JFK to Orlando on March 22, 2020. JetBlue is the sixth largest United States based airline and typically operates around 1,000 flights per day to approximately 100 destinations in the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 419-0156 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com jshah@sfmslaw.com –and– Hassan A. Zavareei, 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 - and – V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6807 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: vprentice@tzlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. Joshua R. Levine, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com JUUL LABS: Carroll Sues in N.D. Cal. Over Sale of E-Cigarettes -------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH CARROLL, individually and as the mother and next of friend of T.A.C. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02562 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL products from Oct. 2016 to present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to her injury, including addiction and nicotine poisoning. She adds that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper. The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC. The Carroll case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com JUUL LABS: Faces Dyer Suit in N.D. California Over Use of E-Cigs ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT DYER, individually and as the father and next of friend of B.D. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02543 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff contends that he used JUUL products from Oct. 2015 to present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to his injury including addiction and nicotine poisoning. The Plaintiff alleges that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper. The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC. The Dyer case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com JUUL LABS: Faces Perry Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigarettes ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICKIE PERRY, individually and as the mother and next of friend of L.P. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02558 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL products from 2018 to 2020 and that use caused and or substantially contributed to her injury, including addiction and nicotine poisoning. She adds that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper. The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC. The Perry case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com JUUL LABS: Faces Pulce Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigarettes ----------------------------------------------------------------- LACRETIA PULCE, individually and as the mother and next of friend of K.P. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02556 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL products from 2017 to present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to her injury including addiction and nicotine poisoning. She adds that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper. The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC. The Pulce case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com JUUL LABS: Gibson Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Use of E-Cigarettes -------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE GIBSON, individually and as the father and next of friend of K.G. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02545 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff contends that he used JUUL products from 2016 to present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to his injury including addiction and nicotine poisoning. He argues that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper. The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC. The Gibson case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com JUUL LABS: Wilhelm Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Use of E-Cigarettes --------------------------------------------------------------- JANECE WILHELM, individually and as the mother and next of friend of D.L. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02560 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL from March 2017 to present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to her injury, including addiction and nicotine poisoning. She adds that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper. The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC. The Wilhelm case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com JUUL LABS: Williams-Walker Sues in N.D. Cal. Over Use of E-Cigs --------------------------------------------------------------- TONYA WILLIAMS-WALKER, individually and as the mother and next of friend of M.W. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02547 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), alleges that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous as they promote nicotine addiction. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for design defect, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and violation of unfair trade practices/consumer protection law, and breach of express warranty. The Plaintiff contends that she used JUUL products from May 2017 to present and that use caused and or substantially contributed to her injury, including addiction and nicotine poisoning. The Plaintiff asserts that JUUL products, including e-cigarettes and JUUL pods, deliver dangerous toxins and carcinogens to users. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, medical monitoring to diagnose JUUL induced injuries at an earlier date to allow for timely treatment and prevention of exacerbation of injuries, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and all such other relief as the Court deems proper. The Defendants are ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; THE MANGEMENT DEFENDANTS INCLUDING JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; AND RIAZ VALANI; AND THE E-LIQUID MANUFACTURING DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MOTHER MURPHY'S LABS, INC.; ALTERNATIVE INGREDIENTS, INC.; TOBACCO TECHNOLOGY, INC.; eLIQUITECH, INC.; AND THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS INCLUDING MCLANE COMPANY, INC.; EBY-BROWN COMPANY, LLC; AND CORE-MARK HOLDING COMPANY, INC. The Williams-Walker case is consolidated in MDL 2913 RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. 412 H St. NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com KEIM ENTERPRISES: Faces Gritz TCPA Suit Over Autodialed Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GRITZ, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEIM ENTERPRISES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. (M.D. Pa., April 6, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant from directing their realtors to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited, pre-recorded and autodialed calls to consumers without their consent, and to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by their conduct. Between November 4, 2019, and November 8, 2019, the Plaintiff received 3 unsolicited calls from the Defendant. None of these calls were answered. On November 8, 2019, at 10:39 AM, Mr. Gritz received a pre-recorded call from the Defendant on his cell phone using phone number 484-209-6077 regarding a home-buying program, says the complaint. The Defendant is a real estate firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew M Carroll, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M. CARROLL 1800 JFK Blvd, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (609) 400-1302 E-mail: andrewcarrollesq@gmail.com -and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 1072 Madison Ave., Suite 1 Lakewood, NJ 08701 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com -and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com KRAFT HEINZ: Osborne ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN OSBORNE, BRIAN COLEMAN and EVE COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF KRAFT HEINZ, DAVID KNOPF, GREG GUIDOTTI, SHIRLEY WEINSTEIN, KATHI BARTON, STEVE CRUCITT and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:19-cv-00307 (Filed March 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 10, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02256 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The case is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Employee Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz. The Plaintiffs filed this complaint on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees of Kraft Heinz who were participants in and beneficiaries of various retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled investment fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust during the period of May 4, 2017, through February 21, 2019. The Plaintiffs contend that the Plan participants, who purchased Kraft Heinz stock, were damaged by overpaying this amount, and they bore this foreseeable loss, which could have been avoided. No matter what happens to the stock price in the future, these Plan participants sustained a loss due to paying the excessive artificial price, and they will bear this loss even if Kraft Heinz stock recovers in the future. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants should have acted to end and prevent this concrete, present harm to the Plan and its participants. Kraft Heinz, is an American food company formed by the merger of Kraft Foods and Heinz with headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Chicago Illinois. EBAB is a committee established by the governing documents of the Plan and is a "named fiduciary" of the Plan according to those documents. The EBAB is a Plan fiduciary pursuant to ERISA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason A. Archinaco, Esq. THE ARCHINACO FIRM Michael A. O'Leary 1100 Liberty Avenue, Suite C-6 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 434-0555 Facsimile: (888) 563-7549 E-mail: jarchinaco@archlawgroup.com - and - Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq. Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq. James Ostaszewski, Esq. ZAMANSKY LLC 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Ehrlich, Esq. Daniel J. Kramer, Esq. William A. Clareman, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3166 E-mail: aehrlich@paulweiss.com dkramer@paulweiss.com wclareman@paulweiss.com - and - Matthew D. Stachel, Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP 1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr. P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 Telephone: (302) 984-6194 E-mail: mstachel@potteranderson.com - and - Roy W. Arnold, Esq. Shawna J. English, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 501 Grant Street, 8th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 932-2814 E-mail: rarnold@blankrome.com senglish@blankrome.com MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Fister ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DAVID JAMES FISTER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, a Massachusetts corporation, and EMERITUS INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10789 (D. Mass., April 20, 2022) arises from a campaign by Defendants to market educational programs through the use of automated text messages in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the text messages received by Plaintiff demonstrates that the messages were sent for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services as it seeks to have him sign up for MIT's course in the "Drug and Medical Device Development program," which is a service. This message therefore qualified as telemarketing. Fister did not provide the Defendants his prior express written consent to receiving telemarketing text messages. Plaintiff's privacy has been violated by the telemarketing robocalls from Defendants. The calls were an annoying, harassing nuisance, the Complaint says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com – and – Donald E. Petersen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DONALD E. PETERSEN 2100 Campbell Street Palatka, FL 32177 Telephone: (407) 648–9050 Email: Petersen.NACBA@gmail.com MIAMI-DADE, FL: Fails to Respond to COVID-19 Threat, Swain Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY SWAIN; ALEN BLANCO; BAYARDO CRUZ; RONNIEL FLORES; WINFRED HILL; DEONDRE WILLIS; PETER BERNAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DANIEL JUNIOR, in his official capacity as Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department; MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Case No. 1:20-cv-21457-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to respond to the obvious and urgent threats posed by the growing COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs contend that the over 1,800 people jailed at Metro West Detention Cent are forced to suffer unconstitutional conditions that deny them the precautions and protections necessary to mitigate against the risks of COVID-19. Because of the ongoing, systemic violations of the Petitioners' constitutional rights, the Petitioners seek class-wide relief requiring the Defendants to take basic and necessary steps to safeguard the health of people who, due to the nature of their confinement, are not only at heightened risk of infection and death but are also rendered unable to take the simple steps to protect themselves that have become a necessary part of everyday life for those people not in jail. The Petitioners further request a writ of habeas corpus for all those who are medically vulnerable and at particularly grave risk of infection and death from COVID-19, says the complaint. Miami-Dade County is a county in the southeastern part of the U.S. state of Florida. The Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department operates the eighth-largest jail system in the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Quinn Smith, Esq. Katherine Alena Sanoja, Esq. GST LLP 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2715 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 856-7723 E-mail: quinn.smith@gstllp.com katherine.sanoja@gstllp.com - and - Meena Jagannath, Esq. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 106 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 907-7697 E-mail: meena@communityjusticeproject.com - and - Maya Ragsdale, Esq. DREAM DEFENDERS 6161 NW 9th Ave. Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: 786-309-2217 E-mail: maya@dreamdefenders.org - and - Alexandria Twinem, Esq. Katherine Hubbard, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800 Washington, DC 2009 Telephone: (202) 894-6126 E-mail: alexandria@civilrightscorps.org katherine@civilrightscorps.org - and - Tiffany Yang, Esq. Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. ADVANCEMENT PROJECT 1220 L Street NW, Ste. 850 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 728-9557 E-mail: tyang@advancementproject.org tharvey@advacementproject.org MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Suris Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION d/b/a MSN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01831-LDH-CLP (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2020), is brought for retribution for the Defendant's actions against deaf and hard of hearing individuals residing in New York and within the United States. The Defendant has denied the Plaintiff, who is deaf and deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals' access to goods and services provided to non-disabled individuals through its Web site, http://www.msn.com/,and in conjunction with its physical locations of offices, video, television and blog studios, publishing personnel and offices, live events, hosting locations along with partnerships with premium publishers and more than 3,000 brands in all major global markets. The Defendant's Web site states "Our AI scans the content as it arrives, processes it to understand dimensions like freshness, category, topic type, opinion content and potential popularity and then presents it to our editors. Editors then curate the top stories throughout the day, across a variety of topics, so our readers get the best news from the best stories." If their AI does all of that, it should be able to add closed captioning to not discriminate against the disabled in violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the American with Disabilities Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff lives in Kings County, New York, and is a deaf individual. The Defendant offers information and video on its Web site on such topics as the Weather, News, Election 2020, Entertainment, Sports, Money, Lifestyle, Health, Food, Travel, Autos, Videos, Kids, amongst other various topics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. SEGAL P.C. 1010 Northern Blvd., Ste. 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 MOWI ASA: Hunt-Alpine Club Suit Moved from Maine to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Portland Hunt-Alpine Club, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-00207 (Filed Oct. 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on April 9, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-21509-KMW to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from alleged unlawful coordination of the price of farm-raised salmon and salmon products derived therefrom, which were sold by the Defendants and/or entities owned or controlled by them between July 1, 2015, and the present. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' conduct violates federal antitrust law and various state antitrust and unfair competition, consumer protection and unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws. Mowi ASA, formerly known as Marine Harvest ASA, is a Norwegian seafood company with operations in a number of countries around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor Asen, Esq. BERMAN & SIMMONS 129 Lisbon Street Lewiston, ME 04240 Telephone: 207-560-0692 E-mail: tasen@bermansimmons.com - and - Adam J. Zapala, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. David McMullan, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6518 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - Samuel J. Dubbin, P.A. DUBBIN & KRAVETZ, LLP 1200 Anastasia Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 371-4700 E-mail: sdubbin@dubbinkravetz.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Jennifer Kelly, Esq. Blaine Finley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com jkelly@cuneolaw.com bfinley@cuneolaw.com MOWI ASA: Prime Steakhouse Suit Moved From Maine to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Prime Steakhouse, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc., Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC Ltd., Bremnes Seashore AS, Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA, Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea Farms Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-00207 (Filed May 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on April 6, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-21463-DPG to the proceeding. This lawsuit arises from the Defendants' unlawful coordination of the price of farm-raised salmon and salmon products derived therefrom which were sold by the Defendants and/or entities owned or controlled by them between July 1, 2015, and the present. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' conduct violates federal antitrust law and various state antitrust and unfair competition, consumer protection and unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws. Mowi ASA, formerly known as Marine Harvest ASA, is a Norwegian seafood company with operations in a number of countries around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Asen, Esq. BERMAN & SIMMONS, P.A. P.O. Box 961 Lewiston, ME 04243-0961 Telephone: (207) 784-3576 E-mail: tasen@bermansimmons.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Jennifer Kelly, Esq. Blaine Finley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com jkelly@cuneolaw.com bfinley@cuneolaw.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hall Suit Transferred to Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Stacy Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Colgate University, Defendants, was transferred from the Indiana Southern District Court with the assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00363 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February 25, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01297. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Diversity-Personal Injury. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq. Raizner Slania, Llp 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 554-9099 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com NATIONAL CREDIT: Ivey Sues in Virginia Over Violation of RICO Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit Adjusters, LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Ivey, Jessica Lewis, Lorene Nelson, Timothy Underwood, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00274-MHL (E.D. Va., April 16, 2020). The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. National Credit Adjusters, L.L.C. (NCA) provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: craig@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com NEW PRIME INC: Parker Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA PARKER, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NEW PRIME INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. Case No. 56-2020-00540835-CU-OE-VTA (Filed March 5, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 8, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03298 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay for all hours work, to pay minimum wages, and to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof. New Prime provides trucking transportation services. The Company offers refrigerated, flatbed, tanker, and intermodal carrier services.[BN] Defendant New Prime, Inc., is represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Michele L. Maryott, Esq. Jordan E. Johnson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com mmaryott@gibsondunn.com jjohnson@gibsondunn.com NEW YORK: Thomas Sues Asserting Claims for Prisoner Civil Rights ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony Annucci, et al. The case is styled as James Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; Andrew Cuomo; Governor, New York State, Case No. 1:20-cv-03072-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as "Prison Condition for Prisoner Civil Rights." Anthony Annucci has drafted legislation that has been signed into law by five different governors. The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Auburn Correctional Facility, in Auburn, New York, appears pro se.[BN] NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bolden Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Twanna Bolden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00451 (W.D.N.Y., April 16, 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 ORION CAPITAL: Bryan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orion Capital Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Amy R. Bryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orion Capital Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00226 (W.D.N.C., April 16, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Orion Capital offers smart debt recovery solutions to creditors by providing consumers easy-to-use account management and payment tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq. ARHUTR H. PIERVINCENTI, P.A. 631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225 Mooresville, NC 28117 Phone: (704) 997-9529 Fax: (704) 230-0413 Email: arthur@lawahp.com PEL-STATE BULK: Workers Seek Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 --------------------------------------------------------- Calvin Collins and Zachary Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pel-State Bulk Plant, LLC and William H. Broyles, II, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00083 (W.D. Tex., March 27, 2020), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of non-payment of overtime premiums pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Collins was employed as an hourly CDL Frac Operator and Hall was employed as an hourly fuel technician by the Defendants from September of 2019 through the present. They claim that they were denied overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (479) 880-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PIONEER EXPLORATION: Dillard Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Steven Dillard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pioneer Exploration LLC, Atlas Operation LLC and Younas Chaudhary, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01127, (S.D. Tex., March 30, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants are into oil and gas exploration. They jointly employed Dillard as a floor hand from October 2019 through March 2020. Dillard claims to regularly work in excess of forty hours per week without overtime and often worked through his meal breaks. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Renu Tandale, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 PROMISE HOME: Questions on Settlement in Abraham FLSA Suit Issued ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HELEN ABRAHAM and NATOYA KERDEANE SYLVESTER, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs. v. PROMISE HOME CARE AGENCY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18 Civ. 4502 (GWG) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order on the pending motion to approve the proposed settlement. The Court scheduled an oral argument on the pending Settlement Motion. The Judge notes that he is proposing revisions to the various notices to the claimants in an effort to simplify the language. Also, these revisions include (1) a requirement that claimants provide an email address and telephone inasmuch as this would vastly increase the chance of finding a claimant who mailed in a claim form but did not cash their check (or whose check was returned as undeliverable); and (2) language requiring that a person seeking to dispute the calculation of weeks worked must do so by attaching a letter to the claim form. The Court is separately emailing a Word version of these documents. It is strongly suggested that the parties do a comparison of the Court's proposed versions to the parties' original versions so that the parties are aware of all of the Court's proposed changes. If the parties disagree with any of the changes, they should raise their disagreements at the oral argument. As to the merits of the settlement proposal itself, the Judge has the following questions that the parties should be prepared to address at the oral argument: I. It would appear far more equitable to distribute funds according to the number of hours worked per week over 40 rather than according to the number of weeks worked. Why did the parties choose to allocate by the number of weeks (paragraph 9.2(B))? Does this not result in a situation where a class member who worked 10 hours in a particular week receives the same payment as a class member who worked 60 hours in that week? Is there a reason such an allocation is fair? II. The Court is concerned that there may be insufficient information to ensure that the notice is received by all the class members. What makes the parties believe they have accurate mail and email addresses for the class members (paragraph 5.2(B))? Is there a plan in effect by the Settlement Administrator or counsel to obtain accurate mail and email addresses before the first mailing is made? More importantly, are cellphone numbers not available? Why is there not a provision for sending a text or email to class members at some point after the initial mailing to ensure there was receipt? III. It appears from paragraph 9.1(B) of the Settlement Agreement that the Defendant is not required to fund the entire $1.1 million amount until 20 months after the date of the Court's preliminary approval order. In light of this fact, the Court would like to discuss with the parties what steps will be taken so that, in the event that a substantial number of class members send in a claim form, greater efforts will be made to ensure that the Settlement Administrator has up-to-date addresses for the class members. The Court has already changed the claim form to require the plaintiffs to provide email addresses. Additionally, affirmative and cost-effective efforts might be made during this lengthy period to ensure that contact is maintained, for example through emails or texts. IV. If the Defendant fails to fully fund the settlement (paragraph 9.1(F)), why should the Plaintiffs not be entitled to a judgment for an amount over and above the agreed settlement amount? Because the settlement is a compromise, the Court does not understand why, if it fails to pay the compromised amount, the Defendant should simply have a judgment entered against it for that same amount. In the Court's experience, there is normally a significant downside built in to dissuade a defendant from failing to adhere to a payment plan -- typically, the threat of a judgment for double the amount remaining due or, at a minimum, an additional 20% of the settlement amount. V. The Court wonders if it is really the case that the text of the "reminder postcard" can actually fit on a postcard. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/X2AHb6 from Leagle.com. Helen Abraham, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated & Natoya Kerdeane Sylvester, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander Todd Coleman -- atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C., Michael John Borrelli -- mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. & Michael R. Minkoff -- mrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. Promise Home Care Agency, Inc., Defendant, represented by Emina Poricanin -- eporican@hodgsonruss.com -- Hodgson Russ LLP & Joshua I. Feinstein -- josh_feinstein@hodgsonruss.com -- Hodgson Russ LLP. PRUCO LIFE: Settlement in Behfarin Suit Wins Initial Approved ------------------------------------------------------------- Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court overseeing the case, Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company, issued an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the pastor's settlement. In July 2017, a putative class action complaint entitled Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the Company imposes charges on owners of universal life policies to cure defaults and/or reinstate lapses, that are inconsistent with the applicable universal life policy. The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California law, and seeks unspecified damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief. In September 2017, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. In September 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. In October 2019, plaintiff filed: (1) the First Amended Complaint adding Prudential Insurance Company of America and Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey as defendants; and (2) a motion seeking preliminary certification of a settlement class, appointment of a class representative and class counsel, and preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. In November 2019, the court issued an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Pruco Life Insurance Company, which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Prudential Insurance Company of America. The company is based in Newark, New Jesey. QUAPAW HOUSE: Faces Schatz Suit Over Reduced Employee Paychecks --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Schatz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUAPAW HOUSE, INC.; CASEY BRIGHT, Case No. 5:20-cv-05066-TLB (W.D. Ark., April 16, 2020), is brought to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act relating to reduced employee paychecks. The Defendants has not paid its employees, specifically including the Plaintiff, since paychecks issued on February 25, 2020, for work performed since that date, according to the complaint. The Defendants reduced employee paychecks for certain benefits, including health coverage, that were not provided as health coverage for all employees terminated on January 31, 2020, yet paychecks delivered in February were still deducted for payment of health coverage. Of course, no paychecks were delivered in March or April 2020, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an employee employed as a program director for QHI's facility in Bentonville known as Decision Point. Quapaw House, Inc., is an Arkansas Non-Profit Corporation that provides residential treatment and mental health services and maintains its home office in Hot Springs, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George M. Rozzell IV, Esq. Kristin Pawlik, Esq. MILLER, BUTLER, SCHNEIDER, PAWLIK, & ROZZELL PLLC 112 W. Center St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: 479.621.0006 Email: grozzell@arkattorneys.com kpawlik@arkattorneys.com RATNER COMPANIES: Faces Olsen FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE OLSEN, individually and for others similarly situated v. RATNER COMPANIES L.C. d/b/a HAIR CUTTERY, PHIL HORVATH, DENNIS RATNER, JOHN/ JANE DOES 1-10, fictitious persons; ABC CORP. 1-10, fictitious entities, Case No. 1:20-cv-03760 (D.N.J., April 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other employees minimum wage when due for the hours they worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that she and employees similarly situated were not paid at least the minimum wage for the hours they worked from March 15, 2020, to March 21, 2020. On March 21, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, the Defendants ceased operations at all of their retail locations across the country. This action came in the middle of a pay period that originally began on March 15, 2020. The Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated to her worked multiple days between March 15, 2020, and when their stores ceased operations, on March 21, 2020, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult individual, who resides in the State of New Jersey. She has been employed by the Defendants as a Hair Stylist since 1994. Ratner owns and operates hair salons, doing business as Hair Cuttery. Mr. Horvath is the President and COO of the company. Mr. Ratner is the founder and CEO of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam S. Malamut, Esq. Keith J. Gentes, Esq. Primitivo J. Cruz, Esq. Mark R. Natale, Esq. MALAMUT & ASSOCIATES, LLC 457 Haddonfield Road Suite 500 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: 856-424-1808 Facsimile: 856-424-2032 RECRO PHARMA: Wins Dismissal of IV Meloxicam-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a trial court has granted the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit related to the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam. On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the Securities Litigation, was filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the company concerning the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but included new allegations and named additional officers as defendants. On February 8, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the company filed its response and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint during the fall of 2019. On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice; however, the plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to file a second amended complaint. In connection with the separation of Baudax Bio, Baudax Bio accepted assignment by the company of all of its obligations in connection with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify the company for all liabilities related to the Securities Litigation. Recro Pharma said, "We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it if the plaintiffs file a new complaint. The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us." Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company. It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma, Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Underway --------------------------------------------------- REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action related to the company's January 2017 initial public offering. A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a consolidated state putative securities class action are pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. These actions collectively purport to assert claims on behalf of putative classes of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to its January 2017 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), purchasers in its secondary offering of common stock in October 2017, and purchasers from October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018. The state action also names certain of the underwriters for the Company's IPO or secondary offering as defendants. The federal and state courts each consolidated multiple separate actions pending before them, the first of which was filed on June 8, 2018. The actions have alleged certain violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted with respect to the IPO, and the Company expects the underwriters to do the same in regard to the claims asserted with respect to the October 2017 offering. Two purported derivative actions, which have since been consolidated, were also filed in federal court in Delaware in 2019 against the Company's directors (with the Company as a nominal defendant), premised on allegations similar to those asserted in the consolidated federal securities litigation. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. REV Group said, "Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of the lawsuits, or any potential effect that it may have on the Company or its operations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November 2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. RITE AID: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- David Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-03531 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2020), challenges the Defendant's policies and practices of failing to pay the Plaintiff all minimum wages owed; to pay overtime wages; to compensate for all hours worked; and to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied payment for all hours worked, including overtime, and has been forced to wait in security-check lines while off-the-clock. This case implicates the Defendant's longstanding policies and practices, which fails to properly compensate non-exempt employees for work performed while "off-the-clock." The Defendant's conduct violates California law by knowingly and willfully requiring the Plaintiff and Class members to perform work and/or remain on duty for the benefit of the Defendant while off-the-clock, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt supervisor by the Defendant. The Defendant operates a chain of drugstores throughout the United States and California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Ryan M. Hecht, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rhecht@schneiderwallace.com ROADRUNNER TRANS: Accord in Wisconsin Securities Suit Fully Paid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that all settlements have been paid in the class action suit entitled, In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144). In 2017, three putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the company and its former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster. On May 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "CAC") on behalf of a class of persons who purchased our common stock between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017, inclusive. The CAC asserted claims arising out of the company's January 2017 announcement that the company would be restating its prior period financial statements and sought certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs. On March 29, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement agreeing to settle the action for $20 million, $17.9 million of which will be funded by the company's D&O carriers ($4.8 million of which is by way of a pass through of the D&O carriers' payment to the company in connection with the settlement of the Federal Derivative Action). On September 26, 2019, the Court entered an Order finally approving the settlement and a final judgment. All settlements have been paid. Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services (TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics. Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers Grove, Illinois. SALESFORCE.COM INC: Expert Discovery Underway in Scheufele Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court in "Scheufele Action", granted lead plaintiff's motion for certification. The parties are proceeding to expert discovery. In July and August 2017, two substantially similar securities class action complaints were filed against ableau Software, Inc. (Tableau) and two of its now former executive officers. The first complaint was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York (the "Scheufele Action"). The second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and was voluntarily dismissed on October 17, 2017. In December 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Scheufele Action filed an amended complaint, which alleged that between February 5, 2015 and February 4, 2016, Tableau and certain of its executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements regarding Tableau's business and operations by allegedly failing to disclose that product launches and software upgrades by competitors were negatively impacting Tableau's competitive position and profitability. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. In February 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "SAC"), which contains substantially similar allegations as the amended complaint, and added as defendants two of Tableau's now former executive officers and directors. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC in March 2018, which was denied in February 2019. Defendants filed an answer to the SAC in March 2019, and subsequently amended their answer in April 2019. On January 15, 2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for certification. The parties have completed fact discovery and engaged in expert discovery. The court has not yet set a trial date. Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions with a focus on customer relationship management. The company offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress, forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts, and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. SANOFI US: APESAC Class Action Underway in France ------------------------------------------------- Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that in the class action lawsuit filed by the APESAC (Association des Parents d'Enfants souffrant du Syndrome de l'Anti-Convulsivant) before a trial court in Paris, the judge denied claimant's motion on interim measures in November 2017. APESAC lodged an appeal which was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Paris in October 2018. Hearings are expected to take place in the second quarter of 2020. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. The company is based in Paris, France. SANOFI US: Continues to Defend Suits Over Sales of Lantus(R) ------------------------------------------------------------ Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Sanofi US and Sanofi GmbH continue to defend two putative class action suits related to Lantus(R). In December 2016 and January 2017, two putative class actions were filed against Sanofi US and Sanofi GmbH in Federal Court in Massachusetts on behalf of direct-purchasers of Lantus(R) alleging certain antitrust violations. In January 2018, the District Court of Massachusetts dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint against Sanofi. The dismissal of Plaintiffs' entire case was without prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which issued its decision on February 13, 2020 reversing and remanding to the district court. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. The company is based in Paris, France. SANOFI US: Faces Suits Over Zantac(R)-Related Injuries ------------------------------------------------------ Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in class action suits related to Zantac(R). In September 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") announced it was investigating the claims of an online pharmacy's Citizen Petition that the medication Zantac(R) (the brand name for ranitidine) used for stomach burns contains or can generate the chemical N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), an alleged human carcinogen. As a precautionary measure, Sanofi initiated a voluntary recall of branded over-the-counter Zantac(R) in October 2019. Concurrent with FDA's investigation, multiple personal injury lawsuits and class actions alleging that Zantac(R) causes various cancers and seeking damages for either alleged personal injuries or alleged economic injuries were filed. In addition, in November 2019, Sanofi received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) related to this issue from the Arizona Attorney General. Sanofi said, "At this preliminary stage, Sanofi cannot reliably predict the outcome of the litigation or the potential impact on the Company." Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. The company is based in Paris, France. SANOFI US: RICO Claims in Insulin Pricing Class Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court overseeing the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Insulin Pricing had dismissed the RICO claims, and allowed some state law claims to proceed. In early 2017, four actions (now consolidated and captioned "In re Insulin Pricing") were filed against Sanofi US in Federal Court in New Jersey on behalf of a putative class of diabetes patients alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO Act") and various state unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes in connection with the pricing of Lantus(R), Apidra(R), and Toujeo(R). In February 2020, the Court dismissed the RICO claims, and allowed some state law claims to proceed. The parties were ordered to commence discovery in September 2019. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. The company is based in Paris, France. SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Rolland Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is still ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Janet Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC. Janet Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC is a purported class action originally filed on April 19, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Spark Energy, LLC charged a variable rate that was higher than permitted by its terms of service, resulting in breach of contract and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs alleged claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case seeks to certify a putative nationwide class of all Spark variable rate electricity customers from April 19, 2011 to the present. The relief sought includes unspecified actual damages, refunds, treble damages and punitive damages for the putative class, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Spark obtained dismissal with prejudice of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim and has sought dismissal of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim and other claims. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. Spark denies the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Spark Energy said, "Given the ongoing discovery and current stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome of this case at this time." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an independent retail energy services company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. SPARK ENERGY: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in Veilleux Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet, are completing a settlement agreement and will present such Agreement to the court for approval. Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC ("Electricity Maine"), an entity acquired by Spark Holdco in mid-2016, enrolled customers and conducted advertising, and promotions not in compliance with law. Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The parties are completing a settlement agreement and will present such Agreement to the court for approval, which we expect the court to review in second quarter of 2020. Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an independent retail energy services company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. TOTAL CARD: Davis Class Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive" ---------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL CARD, INC., a South Dakota corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01212-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., April 21, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff has a defaulted, time-barred debt allegedly owed for an HSBC/Capital One Account which Defendant attempted to collect. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's defaulted debt was allegedly purchased or obtained by Cavalry SPV I, LLC, and allowed Defendant to collect the debt by sending a form collection letter, dated September 10, 2019, which demanded payment of the HSBC debt via discounted settlement offers. However, Defendant's collection letter confused and alarmed Plaintiff about the status of the debt because it failed to provide Plaintiff enough information to make an informed decision. Also, Defendant failed to foreclose the possibility that Cavalry SPV I, LLC could not or would not credit report the debt and could file a lawsuit. Thus, Defendant's form letter is false, deceptive or misleading. Total Card, Inc. acts as a debt collector and operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Davis J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Tel: (708)974-2900 Fax: (708)974-2907 Emails: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angie@philippslegal.com - and – John T. Steinkamp, Esq. JOHN T. STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES 5214 S. East Street, Suite D1 Indianapolis, IN 46227 Tel: (317)780-8300 Fax: (317)217-1320 Email: john@johnsteinkampandassociates.com TRAVELERS AID: Court Approves $8.5K Settlement in Carney Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned WENONAH CARNEY, Plaintiff, v. TRAVELERS AID SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-3599 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement. Wenonah Carney filed the lawsuit against the Defendant on Aug. 8, 2019, alleging that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") by misclassifying her as exempt, thereby resulting in a denial of overtime compensation. Following filing of the Complaint, the parties engaged in informal production and settlement discussions, and ultimately reached an agreement resolving the Plaintiff's individual claims. Because the parties reached a settlement, the Defendant did not file a dispositive motion or answer. Following a telephone conference on Jan. 21, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a revised Settlement Agreement and Release. Only the Confidentiality Clause was changed in the amended submission. The proposed settlement agreement requires the Defendant to pay a total of $8,500 in full settlement of the Plaintiff's lawsuit. The Defendant's $8,500 obligation will be broken down into three separate payments: (1) one check made payable to the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,559.13, from which payroll taxes will be deducted and withheld (based on the claim for unpaid wages); (2) one check payable to the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,559.13 (based on the claim for liquidated damages); and (3) one check payable to the Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $3,381.74 (approximately 40% of the total settlement amount). In exchange, the Plaintiff has agreed to release any and all federal, state, and/or local wage-and-hour-related or wage payment claims, rights, demands, liabilities, debts, suits, and causes of action of every nature and description, whether known or unknown, including, without limitation, statutory, constitutional, contractual, or common law claims for wages, overtime, other compensation or benefits of any kind, damages, unpaid costs, penalties, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, attorney fees, litigation costs, restitution, and equitable relief, which arose during the time that the Plaintiff was employed by or otherwise performed services for the Defendant. The settlement agreement also includes a confidentiality clause requiring that she refrain from seek[ing any publicity or making any statement to the media or press relative to the Lawsuit Finally, the settlement agreement contains a mutual non-disparagement provision forbidding the Plaintiff from making or causing to be made any statements which disparage Defendant, either orally or in writing. Judge Baylson concludes that the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release is fair and reasonable, and that the Plaintiff's counsel has sufficiently demonstrated entitlement to an attorney's fee award of 40% of the total recovery. The Judge finds that the compensation terms and the attorney's fee award are fair and reasonable to the Plaintiff. The Judge also finds that the implementation of the Settlement Agreement and Release would not frustrate the purposes of the FLSA and the third element is fulfilled. For these reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's Settlement Motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/irTWc0 from Leagle.com. WENONAH CARNEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATION, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL GROH -- mgroh@phillemploymentlawyer.com -- MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC & MICHAEL PATRICK MURPHY, Jr. -- murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com -- MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC. TRAVELERS AID SOCIETY OF PHILADELPHIA, doing business as FAMILIES FORWARD PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, represented by LEE E. TANKLE -- tanklel@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP. TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Acerra Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MONICA ACERRA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRULIEVE CANNABIS CORP., KIM RIVERS, and MOHAN SRINIVASAN, Case No. 2:20-cv-00775 (Filed Feb, 12, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) on April 14, 2020. The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00186-RH-MJF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert L. Hinkle. The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Trulieve securities between September 25, 2018, and December 17, 2019. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff purchased Trulieve securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Trulieve, together with its subsidiaries, purports to operate as a medical marijuana company. The Company cultivates and produces products in-house and distributes its products to Trulieve branded stores (dispensaries) in Florida, as well as directly to patients through home delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com TRULIEVE CANNABIS: McNear Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MCNEAR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRULIEVE CANNABIS CORP., KIM RIVERS, and MOHAN SRINIVASAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-07289 (Filed Dec. 30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District for the Northern District of Florida on April 14, 2020. The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00187-AW-MAF to the proceeding. The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Trulieve securities between September 25, 2018, and December 17, 2019, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Trulieve, together with its subsidiaries, purports to operate as a medical marijuana company. The Company cultivates and produces products in-house and distributes its products to Trulieve branded stores (dispensaries) in Florida, as well as directly to patients through home delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com TUFF CREW LLC: Portales FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as NARCISO ALVAREZ PORTALES, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. TUFF CREW LLC and LUIS R. CAMEJO, Case No. 2020-000762-CC-24 (Filed March 9, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on April 10, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-21538-CMA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tuff Crew is doing business in commercial and office building construction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. David Nudel, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com UNITED SITE: Williams CEPA Suit Moved to District of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as GLEN WILLIAMS v. UNITED SITE SERVICES, INC., UNITED SITE SERVICES NORTHEAST, INC. AND JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. MID-L-001131-20 (Filed Feb. 21, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 8, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-03828 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims of retaliation, in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act. The Plaintiff did not allege a specific of amount of damages in his complaint. Although the Defendants submit that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any recovery, the Plaintiff's requested relief includes back pay and front pay damages, lost employment benefits, emotional distress damages, punitive damages and attorneys' costs and fees. United Site provides portable toilet and temporary fence rental services. The Company offers portable restrooms, trailer-mounted toilets, portable washing sinks, shower trailers, waste holding tanks, as well as dumpster rental, generators, septic tank pumping, and grease trap services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren J. Marcus, Esq. Dylan C. Dindial, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Newark Center, 8th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: 973 848 4700 VERDE ENERGY: Jurich Settlement Approved Court Orders Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement reached by the parties in Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. has received final approval, and the court has entered an order of dismissal. Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a class action originally filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8, 2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State of Connecticut. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for the class and injunctive relief. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter. The parties have reached a class settlement in this matter, which has received final court approval, and an order of dismissal on February 24, 2020. Spark Energy said, "Settlement claims' administration is continuing. The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage, net of tax benefit, for any actual exposure in this case at this time." Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an independent retail energy services company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. VIACOMCBS INC: Derosa Sues Over Unremitted Contributions -------------------------------------------------------- Sara DeRosa, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VIACOMCBS Inc., CBS Studios, Inc., Sessions Payroll Management, Inc., Firsthand Productions, Inc., East End Productions, Inc., Snapshot Productions, Inc., Gail Levine, Gregg Levine, Board of Trustees of the AFTRA Retirement Fund, Board of Trustees of the SAG Producers Pension Plan, Board of Trustees of the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02965 (C.D. Cal. March 30, 2020), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation for every hour worked over 40 per week, unlawful deductions from wages in violation of the the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws and failure to furnish wage statements. ViacomCBS Inc. and CBS Studios, Inc. are mass media companies with interests primarily in commercial broadcasting, publishing and television where DeRosa has been employed as a background actor/stand-in through Firsthand Productions, Inc., East End Productions, Inc. and Snapshot Productions, Inc. -- staffing agencies owned by Gail Levine and Gregg Levine. Her wages were paid through Sessions Payroll. She claims that, since 2010, her wages had not been reported to the Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service despite the deductions intended for Medicare, Social Security, federal income tax and New York State income tax were not remitted to the government. AFTRA Retirement Fund, SAG Producers Pension Plan and the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan are multiemployer plans. DeRosa claims that her employer contributions had still not been fully paid to the said plans. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond P. Boucher, Esq. Maria L. Weitz, Esq. Jean Sedlak, Esq. BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903 Tel: (818) 340-5400 Fax: (818) 340-5401 Email: ray@boucher.la weitz@boucher.la Sedlak@boucher.la WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that defendants are still awaiting a court ruling on the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit in New York related to the company's initial public offering. In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. (WOW) and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, as well as Crestview, Avista, and each of the underwriter banks involved with the Company's Initial Public Offering (IPO). The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these actions. The Colorado actions have been stayed while the New York cases have been consolidated with the court staying discovery until after a determination has been made with respect to the Company's Motion to Dismiss. WideOpenWest said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and digital telephony services to residential and business services customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc. in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Englewood, Colorado. WORLD FINANCE: Solis Sues over Unwanted SMS Messages, Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- vJULIE SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORLD FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00404-OLG (W.D. Tex., March 31, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff has obtained an advance loan from Defendant six months ago and was not able to pay due to unforeseen financial hardship. Consequently, Plaintiff started to receive SMS messages and no less than 45 unwanted, unauthorized, unconsented phone calls from Defendant's numbers, including (830)896-8050 and (830)896-8050, in her cellular telephone number ending in 8357. Plaintiff asserts that those persistent and unwanted phone calls from Defendants have caused him actual harm, such as aggravation, anxiety, emotional distress, increased risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction caused by phone calls, invasion of privacy, and many more. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, actual damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs. World Finance Corporation is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. Joseph S. Davidson, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: +1 630-575-8181 Emails: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com WPB HOSPITALITY: Holmes Sues Over Misclassification of Dancers -------------------------------------------------------------- MARQUISHA HOLMES, individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WPB HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a SPEARMINT RHINO GENTLEMAN'S CLUB, and KATHY VERCHER, individually, Case No. 9:20-cv-80617-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020), alleges that the Defendants misclassify their employees as independent contractors, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants required and/or permitted her and hundreds of other individuals to work as an exotic "entertainer" and/or dancer at the Defendants' adult entertainment club but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage rate. In fact, the Plaintiff contend, the Defendants refused to compensate them at all for the hours they worked. She adds that the dancers' only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages owed to her and all other similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants, who worked at Spearmint Rhino Gentleman's Club, at any time during the three-year period before the complaint was filed up to the present. WPB Hospitality is in the cabaret business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5355 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com ZOOM VIDEO: Cullen Sues Over Illegal Personal Data Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Cullen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02155 (C.D. Cal., March 30, 2020), seeks damages and equitable relief in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Consumer Privacy Act. Zoom's chief product, "Zoom Meetings," provides online video conferencing platform which includes remote conferencing services, online meetings, chat and mobile collaboration. Cullen claims that Zoom failed to properly safeguard the personal information of its users as it collects the personal information of its users and allegedly discloses it to third parties. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 333 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 565-7692 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 Email: mjt@wexlerwallace.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Jason K. Keener, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com jkk@wexlerwallace.com ZOOM VIDEO: Taylor Sues over Personal Info Disclosure to Facebook ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02170-SVK (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, public disclosure of private facts, and violations of California Business and Professional Code, California Consumer Privacy Act, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff has downloaded, installed, and accessed the iOS version of the Zoom app by using his Apple iPhone. However, Motherboard reported on March 26, 2020 that the iOS version of the Zoom mobile app was sending customer personal identifiable information (PII) to Facebook without customer authorization or customer consent. Zoom would connect to Facebook's Graph API upon downloading and opening of the app. Allegedly, Zoom violated its promises to its customers to protect their privacy and security when it shared their PII with third parties like Facebook; and breached their expectations of privacy for failing to obtain their permission for doing so. The complaint asserts that Defendant's conduct were a substantial factor in causing the harm suffered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages, including compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a video communication provider, offering a cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, collaboration, chat, and webinars. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareeri, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202)973-0900 Fax: (202)973-0950 Emails: hzavareei@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com [*] GMS Receives Proceeds as Part of Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ GMS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that in February 2020, the Company received proceeds as part of a class action legal settlement. The Company expects to record other income related to the settlement of approximately $12.0 million during the three months ending April 30, 2020. The settlement had no impact on the results of operations for the three and nine months ended January 31, 2020. Founded in 1971, GMS Inc. is a distributor of specialty building products including wallboard, suspended ceilings systems, or ceilings, steel framing and other complementary specialty building products. The company purchases products from a large number of manufacturers and then distribute these goods to a customer base consisting of wallboard and ceilings contractors and homebuilders and, to a lesser extent, general contractors and individuals. The company operates a network of more than 260 distribution centers across the United States and Canada. The company is based in Tucker, Georgia. ********* 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 ***