Southworst for Cancellation Credit? Think these guys are going to “Wanna Get Away” after dealing with all this…two men filed an an unfair business practices class action lawsuit against Southwest Airlines (SWA) this week, alleging the airline unfairly placed a redemption period on the money credits issued to travelers who cancelled their non-refundable tickets.
The Southwest Airlines lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Paul Stewart and Michael Hicks who allege they bought Southwest Airlines non-refundable “Wanna Get Away” round-trip tickets from Tulsa, OK to Phoenix AZ in August 2013. They planned to depart Tulsa on November 14, 2013 and return on November 18, 2013. The complaint states the price for both round drip tickets was $695.
The plaintiffs were unable to travel on the dates they had booked and had to cancel their tickets, which they did, according to the lawsuit, by following the procedures stipulated on the Southwest website. Hicks and Stewart assert they cancelled their flight reservations on October 22, 2013.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs knew their tickets were non-refundable and did not expect a refund. However, Southwest subsequently provided them with a credit they could use toward future tickets on other Southwest flights, the lawsuit states.
“[The plaintiffs] were completely satisfied having money-credits to use in the future, and had good experiences in the past using other money-credits they had with SWA,” the complaint states.
However, when Hicks and Steward tried to use their travel funds they discovered the Southwest money credits were only good for one year from the date they bought their original round trip tickets, which they had cancelled.
The plaintiffs state in the lawsuit that Stewart required significant medical treatment in 2014 and most of 2015, so they were unable to travel in a non-emergency capacity. However, by August 2015, Stewart was able to travel which is when he and Hicks tried to use their Southwest money credits to buy tickets.
“To their surprise and chagrin,” Southwest representatives allegedly informed the plaintiffs that they could not use their money-credits to purchase airline tickets. According to the Southwest Airlines class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs were told the funds had expired, the funds were no longer available, and that the funds were lost, among other things.
They plaintiffs claim they “attempted to resolve their dispute with SWA over their expired, unavailable, and lost money, but SWA simply stonewalled them and stopped responding.”
“The only logical conclusion is SWA confiscated [the plaintiffs’] money, and has kept it as free, unearned profits since August 2013,” the lawsuit states. Hicks and Stewart allege that the funds include federal transportation taxes, 9/11 security fees and passenger facility charges, in addition to the actual fare.
“Unbelievably, SWA has provided nothing in return to [Stewart and Hicks] for the money they paid to SWA,” the complaint states.
The Southwest Airlines class action lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract, fraud and tortious breach of the covenant of good faith.
FYI – The lawsuit is Paul Stewart, et al. v. Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 5:17-cv-00429-F, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Nosy Bose-y? And what about those Bose headphones—who is listening with you? A lot of interested parties, if the allegations in this federal Wiretap Act class action are correct. Filed this week, the lawsuit claims that Bose collects and shares information about app users’ listening habits, which also violates the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act.
According to the lawsuit, filed by Kyle Zak, who bought a pair of Bose wireless headphones for $350, the electronics company secretly collects, transmits and discloses to third parties, including a data mining company, the private music and audio selections of customers who downloaded its Bose Connect mobile app.
The Bose headphone lawsuit also alleges claims for intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment.
Zak is seeking injunctive relief requiring Bose to discontinue its illegal practices and destroy all data it has collected, as well as actual and statutory damages arising from the invasion of privacy and from customers’ purchases of Bose wireless products, including the return of the products’ purchase price and disgorgement of profits. According to the lawsuit, damages likely exceed $5 million.
The case filed Wednesday is Zak v. Bose Corp., case number 1:17-cv-02928, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Possible AdWords Settlement…Google’s about to pony up $22.5 million if a proposed settlement in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit gets the green light.
The Google lawsuit was filed by a proposed class of AdWords advertisers, who allege Google failed to disclose that it placed AdWords customers’ ads on websites known as parked domains and error pages. Oh, that’s a good use of your advertising buck – not.
According to the allegations, Google did this from July 11, 2004 to March 31, 2008. Parked domains, as you may or may not know, are websites with little or no content, and error pages are websites that users visit when they enter an unregistered address into their web browser.
The proposed Google AdWords settlement was granted preliminary approval on March 9, 2017. If granted final approval, Google will pay $22.5 million into a settlement fund, which will be used to pay class members who submit valid claims, proportionate to the amount each class member spent on ads displayed on parked domains and error pages during the class period.
Heads up—if you are a United States resident and had a Google AdWords account and were charged for clicks on advertisements appearing on parked domains or error pages, during the period from July 11, 2004 through March 31, 2008, you are a class member and may be entitled to a settlement payment. Cha ching!
To receive payment, you must submit a claim form no later than June 21, 2017.
The case is In Re Google AdWords Litigation, No. 5:08-cv-03369-EJD.
Ok – That’s a wrap for this week. Happy Weekend!!! See you at the bar!
Senseless Sentra? They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity—I’ll bet Nissan would disagree. The automaker has just been hit with a defective automotive class action lawsuit…this one filed by a waste management company alleging the automotive manufacturer and Nissan World LLC, a local dealership in New Jersey, concealed transmission problems with the 2014 Nissan Sentra.
Here’s the skinny: the plaintiff, Pinto of Montville Inc, claims Nissan falsely advertised and sold its Sentras despite the presence of the alleged defect. “Notwithstanding this longstanding problem and extensive knowledge of the issue, Nissan and the dealership continued to advertise and sell the defective vehicles, failed to issue an appropriate recall, and, amazingly, continued to market the CVT as a more ‘durable’ and reliable transmission,” the complaint states.
FYI—the alleged defect, continuously variable transmissions, has been reported to the National Highway Safety Administration (NHSA) in consumer complaints during the past 10 years.
The Nissan lawsuit states that Pinto bought a Nissan Sentra in July 2014. The problems with the transmission began while the car had less than 20,000 miles on the clock. Those problems include engine revving during gear shifts and shaking and unexpected downshifts while driving. Despite bringing these issues to the dealership, managers claimed the vehicle did not have any problems, the plaintiff claims.
After being replaced four times between 2014 and 2016, (seriously?) due to damage from the alleged defect, Pinto states it tried to make a claim under New Jersey’s Lemon Law. The dealership, despite correspondence from retained counsel, allegedly refused to acknowledge the transmission had problems or preserve the defective transmission in the Sentra pending the lawsuit, amounting to evidence of spoilation, according to the complaint.
If any of this sounds familiar, the lawsuit seeks to represent a class consisting of all owners of the 2014 Nissan Sentra in New Jersey. In total, 11 claims are made, including those for violation of the state’s consumer fraud law, violation of express and implied warranties, product liability, false advertising, and violation of the state’s “lemon law,” among others. The complaint seeks damages and a recall and repurchasing of all 2014 Sentra models registered or sold in the state.
The case is Pinto of Montville Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al., case number L-753-17, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County.
Exempt at Express? Maaaybe not. It’s time for our weekly employment class action. A federal employment and labor law class action lawsuit has been filed against Express Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the lawsuit claims the clothing retailer misclassified co-managers as exempt employees, and denied paying them for required overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The lawsuit was filed by a former New Jersey employee, Karla Reynosa, who alleges she worked as a salaried co-manager at Express stores in New York as well as New Jersey. During her employment with the defendant, Reynosa and other co-managers were frequently required to work overtime but were paid “supplemental” pay equal to one-half of an hourly rate calculated off her annual salary, the lawsuit states.
The FLSA stipulates that time and a half is the hourly overtime rate. “Defendant knowingly and willfully operated its business with a policy of not paying overtime premiums equal to one and a half times Plaintiff’s regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek,” the complaint states.
According to the Express unpaid overtime lawsuit, Reynosa worked for Express from 1999 to 2013 at stores in Manhattan. In 2012 she became a co-manager and generally put in between 43-45 hours per week, and on occasion as much as 49 hours per week. She then moved to an Express in Jersey City, where she worked as a salaried co-manager from June 2015 to about September 2016, and again generally worked 42 hours per week.
Despite her title, Reynosa didn’t have duties that were meaningfully different than the hourly sales associates and wasn’t involved in management, hiring or operational decisions at either store, the complaint states.
The complaint alleges failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA, violations of New Jersey labor law for overtime and unpaid overtime wages, and a violation of New York labor law for unpaid overtime wages.
Reynosa seeks to represent a class of anyone who worked as a salaried, exempt co-manager for Express and put in more than 40 hours per week during any workweek in the past three years. She also seeks to represent a class of those who were allegedly misclassified pursuant to the New Jersey and New York claims.
The case is Karla Reynosa v. Express Inc., case number 2:17-cv-02424, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
DoorDash could be delivering checks… in the not so distant future. The food delivery start-up, has agreed to pay $5 million to settle an employment class action lawsuit brought by workers who claimed they were misclassified so the company would not have to pay expenses among other costs.
Two lawsuits were filed in September 2015, one by Cynthia Marciano and the other by Evan Kissner both alleging that DoorDash misclassified them and other delivery workers as independent contractors, and therefore violated certain provisions of the labor code.
Under the terms of the DoorDash settlement, both named plaintiffs, Marciano and Kissner, will receive $7,500 each. There are approximately 33,744 class members, including anyone who worked for DoorDash as an independent contractor at some point between September 23, 2011 and August 29, 2016, and completed at least one delivery. Each of those class members will receive payment as part of the settlement. According to the agreement, class members who “were most active” on DoorDash will “receive proportionally higher payments.”
For those of us who still venture out in person to the grocery store, DoorDash is a food delivery service located in 16 cities or regions throughout the country, which include San Francisco, San Jose/Silicon Valley, Oakland, Los Angeles, LA Valley, Orange County, San Diego, Boston, Phoenix, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Washington D.C., Minneapolis and Houston.
The settlement requires final court approval. Stay tuned!
I wonder if the Easter Bunny is hiring?
Ok – That’s a wrap for this week. Happy Easter Folks. See you at the bar!
Heads Up Volkswagen and Audi Owners! The automakers got hit with a proposed defective automotive class action lawsuit this week, over allegations they were aware of an engine defect in certain models, which they concealed and which resulted in thousands of dollars in damages to vehicles owners. Know this playbook?
Filed in federal court, the proposed lawsuit states that VW and Audi concealed a defect with the timing chain in certain vehicles built between 2008 and 2013. According to the complaint, the timing chain system is meant to operate normally for at least 120,000 miles, however, the alleged defect caused the timing chain to fail at any time prior to that, causing the vehicles to lose engine power and the ability to accelerate, maintain speed, control steering or fully engage the brakes, putting them at risk of rear-end crashes.
The VW and Audi complaint states that repairing the defect costs $1,200 at a minimum, but can reach $10,000 and involve replacing the entire engine.
The four named plaintiffs, Lloyd Artola, Angel Esquijarosa, Demetrie Hylick and Michael Spencer, are seeking to represent anyone who owned or leased certain Volkswagen or Audi vehicles with the alleged defect. They seek to establish two classes of plaintiffs, a nationwide class and a Florida subclass. The vehicles named in the complaint include various models of Volkswagen Beetles, Golfs, Jettas, Passats, Rabbits, Routans, Tiguans and Touaregs, as well as Audi A3s, A4s, A5s, A6s, A7s, Q3s, Q5s and Q7s.
Named plaintiff Artola claims he paid $6,700 to have his 2011 Audi Q5 repaired when the defect caused severe engine damage at 75,000 miles. Audi agreed to waive the cost of the repair after “much effort,” the complaint states.
Esquijarosa experienced similar trouble after the 2010 Volkswagen CC Sport, which he bought in 2013 from his daughter, suffered catastrophic engine failure at 38,000 miles. It cost him about $4,000 to repair. According to the complaint, “after much effort,” Volkswagen agreed to split the cost.
Hylick bought a used 2010 Volkswagen CC. The defect caused severe engine damage when the vehicles reached about 89,000 miles, costing the plaintiff $8,800 to repair. Spencer bought a used 2009 Volkswagen Passat, which failed to start when the vehicle reached 59,300. He spent $3,300 to have it fixed. Volkswagen refused to reimburse him, the complaint states.
The case is Artola et al. v. Aktiengesellschaft et al., case number 1:17-cv-21296, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
iOS Privacy Settlings…? More spooky stuff. This week, several major tech companies agreed to a $5.3 million settlement deal that, if approved, would end a privacy class action lawsuit accusing the companies of accessing the address book of iOS users without permission. Not surprised by these types of allegations anymore… sadly.
If court approval is granted, Foodspotting, Foursquare, Gowalla, Instagram, Kik, Path, Twitter and Yelp will share in creating the settlement fund which will pay out an estimated 0.53 cents per user, to more than 7 million users.
The lawsuit was filed in 2012 and alleges the tech and social media companies, through their services, used “unconscionable, illegal practices” in accessing contacts belonging to users without the users’ consent. The plaintiffs assert that this is equivalent to the contacts being “accessed and stolen.”
The lawsuit was brought following publicity around reported breaches of privacy. The Federal Trade Commission also investigated the charges, which resulted in an $800,000 settlement with the social network app Path over its practices. A settlement hearing will be held on May 25. If approved, the settlement would apply primarily to iOS users whose address books were accessed and contacts were viewed by the defendants, without permission, between 2010 and February 2012.
Settlement payments will be made to class members via the Amazon accounts of those affected, unless they request payment in the form of a check. Any unclaimed funds from the settlement will be given to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Ten Years After… Here’s one for the books. Already record-setting, this week a decade of litigation may have reached its end, with a $100 million settlement receiving preliminarily approval. The defendant is Haliburton, and the securities class action lawsuit centered around the company’s liability in its disclosure of asbestos use.
Not only has litigation of this lawsuit taken a decade but it has also included two trips to the US Supreme Court. If granted final approval, the $100 million settlement will effectively end one of the longest running securities fraud class actions in US courts, according to a copy of the settlement papers.
The lawsuit was filed in 2002, by a Milwaukee charitable organization that held Halliburton stock under its Erica P. John Fund as well as other plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleged Halliburton’s disclosure of a $30 million verdict stemming from asbestos liabilities sent the company’s stock price plummeting by 40 percent. The company’s stock prices were artificially inflated, the lawsuit claimed, resulting from misstatements issued about its financial liability for asbestos claims.
Chief US District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn scheduled a settlement fairness hearing to take place at the end of July. Additionally, a deadline of August 12 has been set for any class members who want to participate in the settlement to submit a claim form.
The case is Erica P. John Fund Inc. v. Halliburton Co., case number 3:02-cv-01152, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Ok…That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!
Windows 10 OS not Operating? Perhaps this doesn’t come as a surprise—particularly if you run Windows 10. Microsoft got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week by Windows 10 users who allege the Microsoft Windows 10 operating system (OS) causes problems, including loss of data, and that Microsoft failed to ensure the operating system wouldn’t cause problems prior to launch.
The three named plaintiffs, Stephanie Watson, Robert Saiger, and Howard Goldberg, allege in the complaint that Windows 10 caused their computers to lose data and stop functioning properly. While Saiger and Goldberg said they voluntarily installed the new OS, Watson claimed her computer was upgraded to Windows 10 without her permission.
The Windows 10 lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs have lost time and money trying to recover lost data and resolve other problems caused by the upgrade. Further, Watson alleges she had to buy a new computer because her old one could not be successfully repaired following the Windows 10 install.
Cast your mind back to 2015—when Windows 10 was released as a free upgrade—for one year—to Microsoft users running previous versions of the company’s operating system. Currently installed on more than 400 million devices, Microsoft promoted the platform as its most advanced and secure OS to date. Of course it did.
However, post-launch, many customers have complained about the company’s aggressive efforts to get people to upgrade.
The lawsuit also claims that the prompts and upgrade offers for Windows 10 sent out by Microsoft were difficult to dismiss and remove and, once installed, the operating system itself was not easy to uninstall, if users found the upgrade caused problems.
“A great number of people have installed the Windows 10 system inadvertently or without full realization of the extent of the download,” the complaint stated. “Once downloaded, the Windows 10 system does not have an option for its deletion. The program can be deleted but it takes a significant effort to find out how to do so; a typical user will not have the expertise to remove the system without professional IT help.”
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the complaint is seeking in excess of $5 million in damages. The suit seeks to represent a class comprised of all users in the US who lost data or whose devices were damaged after installing Windows 10.
Wells Fargo to Pay? The big news this week? Wells Fargo will pony up $110 million according to a preliminary settlement agreement that could potentially end 12 banking fraud class action lawsuits. The Wells Fargo lawsuits allege the bank workers opened accounts in customers’ names without those customers’ authorizations.
According to the terms of the deal, if approved, eligible class members would be reimbursed for fees they were charged related to the unauthorized accounts and out-of-pocket expenses. Once those losses have been reimbursed, together with court costs and attorneys’ fees, the remaining funds would be split among all claimants, based on the number and kinds of unauthorized accounts or services claimed.
Heads up—eligible class members would be anyone who alleges Wells Fargo opened an account in their name without consent, enrolled them in a product or service, or submitted an application for a product or service in their name without consent between January 1, 2009, and the date the settlement is executed.
As well, Wells Fargo has said it will continue its voluntarily review of bank accounts opened between 2009 to 2010, to determine and remediate any customer harm. It has also said it will continue its nationwide mediation program to address customer concerns.
The back story? A federal investigation uncovered 1.5 million fraudulent bank and 565,000 credit card accounts set up by bank employees in order to boost or hit sales targets. Further, the employees also made up PIN numbers and email accounts in connection with the false accounts, to get people to sign up for online banking services, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said in a statement. This has already cost the bank $185 million in fines. Lesson learned? Maybe…
Nearly 5,300 employees were fired after the scheme was revealed, and in February, Wells Fargo’s board of directors voted to fire four senior managers in connection with an ongoing investigation stemming from the scandal.
Kombucha Mislabeling Mess. Kombucha! Bought it? Then realized it’s not what it’s advertised to be? Read on. A proposed GT’s Kombucha settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Millennium Products Inc., and Whole Foods over allegations the defendants misrepresented the alcohol, sugar, and antioxidant content of certain GT’s Kombucha products. Under the terms of the proposed deal, a fund of up to $8,250,000 will be established to pay claims for those who purchased one or more flavors of GT’s Classic Kombucha, GT’s Classic Synergy, GT’s Enlightened Kombucha, and GT’s Enlightened Synergy beverages.
Class members can receive up to $35 in cash or product vouchers without Proof of Purchase or up to $60 in cash or product vouchers with Proof of Purchase. To qualify, class members must have purchased one or more specified Kombucha beverages from March 11, 2011 through February 27, 2017.
What’s the issue? The class action lawsuit alleged that Millennium mislabeled certain Kombucha products, stating the products were non-alcoholic despite containing more alcohol than is permitted in order to label them as non-alcoholic beverages; failing to include added sugar as an ingredient on the label even though the products allegedly contain added sugar; understating the amount of sugar included in the Kombucha products; and including the term “antioxidant” on the labels even though the Kombucha products do not actually contain antioxidants.
Whole Foods was named as a defendant in the Kombucha class action lawsuit because the grocery chain allegedly violated the law by reselling the allegedly mislabeled GT’s Kombucha products.
The settlement agreement, if approved, would also see Millennium make labeling changes to address the issues alleged in the Kombucha class action lawsuit and to have samples of the products tested by a third-party laboratory to ensure they continue to comply with federal and state labeling standards.
The final hearing for settlement approval is scheduled for July, 2017. The case is Retta, et al. v. Millennium Products Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01801-PSG-AJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Ok—That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!
SoyNut Butter & E. coli for lunch? Nasty stuff, literally. Check your cupboards! A food poisoning class action lawsuit has been filed against The SoyNut Butter Company of Illinois and the manufacturer of the product, Dixie Dew Products of Erlanger, Kentucky. The complaint was filed by the parents of a young child, identified as L.S. in the complaint, who became ill after eating E. coli O157:H7-contaminated I.M. Healthy SoyNut Butter. They allege their daughter developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a life-threatening complication of E. coli infection, after ingesting the contaminated product.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 16 people from nine states have so far been confirmed as infected with the strain of E. coli O157:H7 connected to the SoyNut Butter outbreak. Like L.S., 14 of the 16 people who became ill in this outbreak are under the age of 18, eight of whom have required hospitalization.
The affected states include includes Arizona (4), California (4), Maryland (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (1), Oregon (2), Virginia (1), Washington (1), and Wisconsin (1). That number is expected to increase.
The plaintiffs, Travis and Morgan Stuller, allege L.S. regularly ate SoyNut Butter in the days leading up to her illness. On or about February 21, 2017, L.S. developed painful gastrointestinal symptoms, which worsened to include grossly bloody diarrhea. She was seen by her treating physician for ongoing symptoms, but, on March 5, was hospitalized at Seattle Children’s Hospital and remained so until March 8. While in the hospital, an illness of E. coli O157:H7 was confirmed and she was treated for hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a potentially life-threatening condition. L.S. continues to recover at home, but faces uncertain future medical complications, according to statements.
FYI—the case number is 1:17-cv-02138.
Check those Subway receipts… Strap yourselves in—it’s a record $30.9 million settlement for the maker of “foot long” sandwiches, potentially ending a Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) class action brought against Subway, over allegations the company unlawfully printed full credit card expiration dates on receipts. If approved, this will be the largest settlement ever made under FACTA.
The lawsuit was filed against Doctor’s Associates Inc., which does business as Subway, on behalf of nearly 2.6 million people who claim their credit or debit card information was potentially compromised by the printed receipts.
Named plaintiff Shane Flaum filed his complaint in June 2016, alleging Subway violated FACTA through its practice of printing customers’ cards’ full expiration dates even after it had been sued in the past for similar violations, specifically twice in 2007, and again in 2008 and 2009, he states.
FACTA regulations require retailers to omit card expiration dates on receipts, as emphasized in the Credit and Debit Card Clarification Act.
According to the Subway lawsuit, the deal “sets a new record for FACTA class actions” and is believed to be the “largest FACTA settlement in the history of FACTA.”
The class includes all Subway patrons who received receipts upon purchase that showed their credit or debit cards’ full expiration dates between January 1, 2016, and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement.
The lawsuit is Flaum v. Doctor’s Associates Inc., case number 0:16-cv-61198, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Neiman Marcus hack? Neiman Marcus reached a $1.6 million settlement this week, potentially ending a data breach class action lawsuit its facing stemming from a cyber attach reported in December 2013. That hack allegedly affected some 350,000 customers. Ugly.
If the settlement receives approval, eligible class members will include US residents who held credit or debit card accounts used at any physical locations operating under the Neiman Marcus Group LLC name, including its namesake, Bergdorf Goodman, Cusp or Last Call, from July 16, 2013, to Jan. 10, 2014.
In March 2014, Neiman Marcus customers Hilary Remijas, Melissa Frank, Debbie Farnoush and Joanne Kao sued the retailer after it said that a December 2013 data breach had exposed the credit card data of 350,000 shoppers. The company had claimed that just 9,200 accounts were impacted.
The Neiman Marcus lawsuit asserted that the luxury Dallas-based retailer was negligent in its failure to protect its customers’ privacy and in waiting a full 28 days to inform them of that breach.
According to the terms of the deal, each class member who submits a valid claim is eligible to receive up to $100 from the settlement fund. The settlement also calls for each class representative to receive up to $2,500 in service awards.
The case is Hilary Remijas et al. v. the Neiman Marcus Group LLC, case number 1:14-cv-01735, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Ok – That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!