Class Action Money and Ethics Conference 2017

Class Action Newsletter

Enter your email address to follow Class Action Reporter and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 596 other followers

Class Action Newsletter

Beard Group, Inc. is a law and business publisher founded in 1986.

Beard Group publishes the Class Action Reporter every weekday, which provides definitive coverage about class action and multi-plaintiff litigation matters including new filings, pre-trial proceedings, settlements, verdicts, court rulings, appellate proceedings, claim administration and distributions, and professional compensation.

January 1, 2017 marked Class Action Reporter’s 19th year of publication.

A free 30-day trial to this premier class action news publication can be activated at:

Class Action Reporter

BOSE CORP: “Zak” Sues Over Disclosure of Private Music Choice

KYLE ZAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOSE CORP., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02928 (N.D. Ill., April 18, 2017), accuses Defendant of secretly collecting, transmitting, and disclosing its customers’ private music and audio selections to third parties, including a data mining company.

Defendant Bose Corp. manufactures and sells high-end wireless headphones and speakers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654

– and –

Jay Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654

Increased Class Participation in the Digital Age Panel – May 1

We are looking forward to this year’s “Increased Class Participation in the Digital Age” panel on May 1, 2017, at the Class Action Money & Ethics Conference in NYC.

Professor Samuel Issacharoff of NYU (featured in this recent Law 360 Article titled: NFL Concussion Attys Say Deal Advanced Class Action Law) will be moderating and discussing this issue with Shana E. Scarlett (Hagens Berman), Honorable Faith Hochberg (Hochberg ADR), Mark Sole (Sipree), and Steven Weisbrot (Angeion Group).

Join us by registering at http://wp.me/P840Eq-14

FLINT, MI: Judge Remands “Nappier” to Michigan Court of Claims

Judge Gordin J. Quist of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, remanded the case styled TAMARA NAPPIER, as mother and next fried of T.N., a minor child, on behalf of T.N. and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16- CV-636 (W.D. Mich.).

As a cost-saving measure, the City of Flint switched its water source from the City of Detroit water system to the Flint River. In connection with the switch, officials discontinued corrosion- control treatments required by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and added ferric chloride, which increased the corrosivity of the Flint River water, to reduce formation of trihalomethanes from organic matter. Plaintiff Tamara Nappier, the mother and next friend of T.K., a minor, alleges that defendants knew that the water pumped from the Flint River was toxic and not fit for consumption, but nonetheless assured the public that it was safe to drink. Plaintiff further alleges that, in spite of defendants’ assurances, T.K. experienced an elevated blood lead level and suffered permanent brain damage as a result of drinking water from the Flint River. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were grossly negligent and/or negligent in participating in, or facilitating, the switch to Flint River water as the source of the City of Flint’s water. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all individuals who were minors, resided in the City of Flint, and suffered brain damage as a result of ingesting water supplied from the Flint River.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action case in the Michigan Court of Claims on March 23, 2016, against Richard Snyder, Nick Lyon, Eden Wells, Nancy Peeler, and Robert(State defendants), Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Liane Shekter Smith, and Bradley Wurfel and Darnell Early (MDEQ defendants) and Gerald Ambrose. Plaintiff alleged a single substantive count of gross negligence and/or negligence against all defendants arising out of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

Busch removed the case to the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, pursuant to the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), alleging that pursuant to the federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. Section 300f et seq. and the EPA’s LCR, the EPA has delegated authority to the MDEQ to act on its behalf and regulate public water drinking systems and that defendant Busch took the actions alleged by plaintiff in the course of fulfilling his duties delegated by the EPA to the MDEQ. Defendant Busch alleged that he was standing in the shoes of the EPA and taking actions which EPA would have otherwise been required to take, and his alleged actions were taken pursuant to EPA’s oversight and guidance. Defendant Busch also alleged that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441 because plaintiffs’ claims are inextricably intertwined with the construction, interpretation, and effect of the SDWA and the LCR.

Judge Quist concludes that the MDEQ defendants were not acting under any federal officer or agencies when they took the actions set forth in the complaint, and thus were not entitled to remove the case under the federal-officer removal statute. In addition, the court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction under the substantial federal question doctrine. Judge Quist will remand the case to the Michigan Court of claims for lack of jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Quist’s opinion dated March 31, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/sxGh5F from Leagle.com.

Tamara Nappier, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth C. Thomson, Hertz Schram PC — Patricia A. Stamler — at Hertz Schram PC

Richard Snyder, Defendant, represented by Eugene Driker — Morley Witus — Todd R. Mendel — at Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker; Margaret Bettenhausen — Nathan A. Gambill — Richard S. Kuhl — Zachary C. Larsen — at MI Dept Attorney General

Darnell Earley, Defendant, represented by Todd Russell Perkins — The Perkins Law Group PLLC

Gerald Ambrose, Defendant, represented by Barry Abba Wolf — at Barry A. Wolf, Attorney at Law, PLLC

Bradley Wurfel and Daniel Wyant, Defendant, represented by Christopher Bradley Clare — Jay M. Berger  — Michael J. Pattwell — at Clark Hill PLC

Liane Shekter Smith, Defendant, represented by Michael H. Perry — Robert Paul Vance — Thaddeus E. Morgan — at Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap PC

Stephen Busch, Defendant, represented by Courtney Beth Ciullo — Dennis Egan — Krista A. Jackson — Philip A. Grashoff, Jr. — at Kotz Sangster Wysocki PC

Patrick Cook and Michael Prysby, Defendants, represented by Allison Marie Collins — Charles E. Barbieri — at Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC

Nick Lyon and Eden Wells, Defendants, represented by Margaret Bettenhausen — Nathan A. Gambill — Richard S. Kuhl — Zachary C. Larsen — at MI Dept Attorney General

Robert Scott and Nancy Peeler, Defendants, represented by Michael S. Cafferty — at Michael S. Cafferty & Associates PC

CONDE NAST: Faces “Sullivan” Suit in S.D. New York

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conde Nast Entertainment LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Conde Nast Entertainment LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02529 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 7, 2017).

Conde Nast Entertainment, also called Conde Nast Entertainment Group, is the book to film division of Conde Nast magazine publisher.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10016

PATELCO CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, “Gadomski” Suit Claims

Kellie Gadomski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Patelco Credit Union, Case No. 2:17-at-00353 (E.D. Cal., March 31, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant’s unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Patelco Credit Union it is one of the oldest and largest credit unions in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Matthew M. Loker
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ml@kazlg.com

WELLS FARGO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

Kellie Gadomski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:17-at-00351 (E.D. Cal., March 31, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant’s unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. provides personal, small business, and commercial banking services. [BN]

Kellie Gadomski is a pro se plaintiff.

REMINGTON ARMS: Court Granted Certification of Class & Subclasses

 

\In the lawsuit captioned IAN POLLARD, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. REMINGTON ARMS
COMPANY, LLC, et al. the Defendants, Case No. 4:13-CV-00086-ODS
(W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Ortrie D. Smith entered an order:

1. granting parties’ joint motion for final settlement
approval;

2. certifying case for settlement purposes, as a class action
with the subclasses defined as:

Settlement Class A:

Class A(1) – Class Representatives Moodie and Waterman:

“all current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven,
Sportsman 78, and 673 firearms containing a Remington
trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector.
Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither
citizens nor residents of the United States or its
territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
over the action and members of their families; (c)
governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates
(the “Trigger Connector Class”);

Class A(2) – Class Representative Delperdang:

“all current owners of Remington Model 710, 715, and 770,
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are:
(a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the
United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or
Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of
their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington
Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
and affiliates (the “Trigger Connector Class”);

Class A(3) – Class Representatives Otis and Keesy:

“all current owners of Remington Model 600, 660, and XP-100
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are:
(a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of
the United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or
Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of
their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington
Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
and affiliates (the “Trigger Connector Class”);

Class A(4) – Class Representative Barbre:

“all current owners of Remington Model 721, 722, and 725
firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are:
(a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the
United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or
Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of
their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington
Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
and affiliates (the “Trigger Connector Class”);

Settlement Class B:

Class B(1) – Class Representatives Brown, Winterburn,
Hardaway, Pollard, Anderson, Corsi, and Massie:

“all current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven
rifles containing an XMark Pro trigger mechanism
manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014, who have
not participated in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product
recall. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are
neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its
territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
over the action and members of their families; (c)
governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the
“X-Mark Pro Class”)”; and

Class B(2) – Class Representatives Pollard, Anderson,
Corsi, and Massie:

“all current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and
Model Seven rifles who replaced their rifle’s original
Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014.
Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither
citizens nor residents of the United States or its
territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
over the action and members of their families; (c)
governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the
“X-Mark Pro Class”);

3. declaring settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and
adequate;

4. incorporating terms of the Fourth Amended Settlement
Agreement as the Order of this Court;

5. overruling all objections to the settlement;

6. appointing Plaintiffs Moodie, Waterman, Delperdang, Otis,
Keesy, Barbre, Brown, Winterburn, Hardaway, Pollard,
Anderson, Corsi, and Massie as class representatives;

7. appointing Richard Arsenault, Charles Schaffer, Eric
Holland, and W. Mark Lanier as class counsel;

8. excluding Vincent Agnelli Jr., Leon Baily, Mike Blair,
Carol Bonham, Leonard Bonham, David Harris Jr., John
Hoober, Ronson Ibarra, Brad Sisneros, Timothy Tomlinson,
and David Wight from the settlement;

9. appointing Angeion as the class action settlement
administrator to perform the duties assigned to it in the
settlement agreement;

10. approving Plaintiffs’ application for fees and expenses in
the amount of $12.5 million;

11. approving Plaintiffs’ request for costs and expenses in
the amount of $474,892.75 (that amount shall be subtracted
from the $12.5 million awarded to class counsel);

12. granting Plaintiffs’ request for service awards to class
representatives in the amount of $2,500 each; and

13. directing Defendants to publish a copy of the Order on the
Settlement Website.

Pursuant to the terms of the Fourth Amended Settlement Agreement,
the Court retains jurisdiction over the parties, including the
settlement classes, in matters relating to the administration,
consummation, validity, enforcement, and interpretation of the
settlement agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, the matter is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GkQeCLvJ

DOORDASH INC: Faces “Angell” Suit Alleging TCPA Violation

Gregory Angell, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Doordash, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv- 01478 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2017), seeks injunction requiring DoorDash to cease all of its unsolicited text message activities pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in at least the following ways: Defendants, either directly or through its agents, illegally contacted Plaintiff and the Class members via their cellular telephone by using a telephone facsimile machine, thereby causing Plaintiff and the Class members to reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiff and the Class members previously paid and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and the Class members.

Defendant, DoorDash, Inc. is a food delivery service that allows customers to place food orders, through a mobile phone application or through its website, from various restaurants in the DoorDash marketplace.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Kazerouni Law Group, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

– and –

Eric W. Kem, Esq.
The Law Offices of Eric W. Kem
11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250, #168
Los Angeles, CA 90025

– and –

Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
Hyde & Swigart
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108

1-800 CONTACTS: “Nance” Sues Over Deceptive Contact Lenses Prices

Tyler Nance, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00178, (E.D. Ark., March 22, 2017), seeks to recover damages, including treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief resulting from restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Defendant 1-800 Contacts is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 66 East Wadsworth Park Drive, Draper, Utah 84020. It sells contact lenses and related products over the internet and by telephone throughout the United States, including the State of Arkansas.

1-800 Contacts allegedly entered into bidding agreements with search engine companies that did not display the prices, products and services offered by its competitors in the market for online sales of contact lenses, thus limiting price and competition. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
Joseph Henry Bates, Esq.
Justin Craig, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201

– and –

Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
BAILEY GLASSER LLP
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 1235
West Conshohocken, PA 19428

– and –

James L. Kauffman, Esq.
BAILEY GLASSER LLP
1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
Washington, DC 20007

TORONTO-DOMINION: “Tucci” Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach

JANET TUCCI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, BHARAT B. MASRANI, RIAZ E. AHMED, and COLLEEN M. JOHNSTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01735 (D.N.J., March 15, 2017), alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company’s wealth asset growth and increased fee-based revenue was spurred by a performance management system that led to its employees breaking the law at their customers’ expense in order to meet sales targets; (ii) the Company illicitly increased customers’ lines of credits and overdraft protection amounts without their knowledge; (iii) the Company illicitly upgraded customers to higher-fee accounts without permission; (iv) the Company lied to customers as to the risk of the Company’s products and services; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, TD Bank’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank conducts a general banking business through banking branches and offices located throughout Canada and overseas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
570 Broad Street – Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102

– and –

Jeremy A. Lieberman
J. Alexander Hood II
Hui M. Chang
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603

– and –

Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603

– and –

BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165

%d bloggers like this: