/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100413.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 13, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 71 Headlines 5 STAR APPAREL: Recalls 11,500 Mecca Children's Hooded Jackets ARENA RESOURCES: Being Sold Through Unfair Process, Suit Says BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Meet HAMP Obligations, Suit Claims BIDZ.COM: FTC Concludes E-Mail Marketing Investigation CARTER-GLOGAU: N.D. Tex. Approves $110 Mil. E-Ferol Settlement CIVIA CYCLES: Recalls 800 Hyland Bicycles & Carbon Bicycle Forks HOTT WINGS: Hooters Franchise Wage Suit Profiled in N.Y. Times IRWIN INDUSTRIES: Sued for Labor Code Violations JAMES RAY: Accused of Not Refunding Fees for Canceled Events KAMAL NATH: Accused of Leading 1984 Mob Killings in India LAWYERS TITLE: Sued for Non-Payment of Vested Severance Benefits MBS DIRECT: Accused in Mich. Suit of Deceptive Sales Practices MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settles Illegal Alien Lawsuit for $18 Million NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Opening Arguments in Gender Bias Suit REED ELSEVIER: Suit Complains About LexisNexis E-Filing Order RHODE ISLAND: Suit Complains About Truancy Court Program SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: D. N.J. Securities Fraud Case Dismissed TEVIS OIL: MTBE Trial Underway in Carroll County, Md. TOYOTA MOTOR: JPMDL Transfers Class Action Suits to C.D. Calif. TRANSITIONS OPTICAL: Charged with Monopolistic Activities UNITED STATES: 9/11 Cleanup Contractors Urge Approval of Deal ********* 5 STAR APPAREL: Recalls 11,500 Mecca Children's Hooded Jackets -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with 5 Star Apparel LLC, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 11,500 Mecca Children's Hooded Jackets with Drawstrings. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The jackets have drawstrings through the hood which can pose a strangulation hazard to young children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recall products involve girls' and boys' hooded jackets with drawstrings. Girl's Pink Short-Sleeve Lightweight Jacket Style No. Sizes ------------------------ --------- ----- MIG108105 12M, 18M, 24M MLG108105 4 - 6X MTG108105 2T - 4T Boy's Black or Brown Heavy Jacket Style No. Sizes -------------------- --------- ----- MLK908602 4 - 7 MT908602 2T - 4T Picture of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10193.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Burlington Coat Factory, Marshalls and other retail stores nationwide from April 2008 through December 2009 for between $40 and $100. Consumers should remove the drawstring immediately, cut the drawstring out of garment or return the jacket to the store where purchased for a full refund. For additional information, call 5 Star collect at (646) 273-1225 or (646) 273-1228 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. ARENA RESOURCES: Being Sold Through Unfair Process, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Arena Resources are selling the company too cheaply to Sandridge Energy, through an unfair process, for $40 a share, or $6.2 billion, shareholders say in Oklahoma County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Eberhardt v. Arena Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. CJ-2010-2899 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by; William B. Federman, Esq. Sara E. Collier, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: 405-235-1560 - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq. Ashley R. Palmer, Esq. Alejandro E. Moreno, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B St., Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-525-3990 BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Meet HAMP Obligations, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of America took $25 billion in bailouts, but refuses to follow federal rules and help homeowners having difficulty paying their mortgages, a class action claims in Federal Court. Though the bank gets $1,000 for each mortgage it modifies under the Home Affordable Modification Program, BofA often decides it is "more profitable for a mortgage servicer such as Bank of America to avoid modification and to continue to keep a mortgage in a state of default or distress and to push loans toward foreclosure," the complaint states. As a recipient of Troubled Asset Relief Program money, Bank of America was required to enroll in the government's Home Affordable Modification Program, to provide homeowners with affordable mortgage payments. Under HAMP, loan servicers must respond to homeowners' requests for loan modifications and are not allowed to foreclose on homes while their loans are being evaluated. But the class claims Bank of America has ducked its HAMP obligations, and has "regularly and repeatedly violated several of its prohibitions." "Because Bank of America is not meeting its contractual obligations, at least hundreds of California homeowners are wrongfully being deprived of an opportunity to cure their delinquencies, pay their mortgage loans and save their homes," the complaint states. Lead plaintiffs Suzanne and Greg Bayramian say they are forced to live in an apartment while their home sits vacant, unsure if it will be foreclosed on or if they will ever be accepted into the HAMP program. Though Bank of America agreed to implement HAMP in April 2009, the Bayramians say they found out in September 2009 that the bank still did not have the HAMP program fully implemented. An employee "had no idea when the HAMP program would be available if at all for the Bayramians," the couple says. The class wants Bank of America ordered to honor its contract with the government, and enjoined from continuing its policy of foreclosing on borrowers' homes and deliberately delaying the loan modification process. It also seeks restitution and damages for breach of contract and violation of the business and professions code. A copy of the Complaint in Bayramian, et ux. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01458 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/BofAHAMP.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: 510-725-3000 E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Ari Y. Brown, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com ari@hbsslaw.com BIDZ.COM: FTC Concludes E-Mail Marketing Investigation ------------------------------------------------------ Bidz.com, a leading online retailer of jewelry, says that the staff of the Federal Trade Commission has decided not to recommend enforcement action against the Company in connection with the FTC's investigation, previously disclosed by the Company, into the Company's email marketing practices. "We are pleased with the decision of the FTC staff, as we have cooperated fully throughout the investigation," said David Zinberg, the Company's Chief Executive Officer. "We take very seriously our, and our marketing partners', obligations relating to email marketing. This favorable result will allow us to concentrate on our core business." In May 2009, the Company received a Civil Investigation Demand for Information from the FTC in connection with the FTC's investigation of the Company's compliance with various provisions of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 ("CAN-SPAM"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 7701, et seq., relating to the advertising, marketing, and promotion of the Company and its products through the use of emails. The focus of the investigation was failure to honor opt-out requests by individuals who wanted to stop receiving commercial email messages sent by or on behalf of the Company. The FTC's decision follows the Company's announcement on March 1, 2010, where the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and for Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel Court's ruling in favor of Bidz that alleged, among other things, that the Company engaged in unfair business practices. As a result of this favorable ruling, the Company settled this purported class action lawsuit for a minimal cash settlement to resolve this distraction and focus on its ongoing operations. About Bidz.com Bidz.com -- http://www.bidz.com/-- founded in 1998, is a leading online retailer of jewelry. Bidz offers its products through a live auction format as well as a fixed price online retail store, Buyz.com. Bidz.com's auctions are also available in Arabic, German and Spanish. Bidz also operates Modnique -- http://www.modnique.com/-- a division of Bidz.com, an exclusive private sale shopping site for members-only, offering authentic premium brand name merchandise. Modnique offers its members exclusive access to 24-72 hour sales events on designer apparel, accessories, shoes, and houseware and much more at price points up to 85% below traditional retail prices. CARTER-GLOGAU: N.D. Tex. Approves $110 Mil. E-Ferol Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Mitch Mitchell at the Fort Worth Star Telegram reports that nearly 26 years after an intravenous vitamin E supplement was marketed to hospitals to help premature babies, a federal judge in Wichita Falls approved a $110 million class action settlement Friday against the manufacturer and distributor of E-Ferol, which was responsible for killing at least 38 babies in the mid-1980s. E-Ferol, a solution given intravenously to help prevent blindness, was marketed and administered without Food and Drug Administration approval. Federal officials recalled the drug on April 11, 1984, after about five months on the market, as death reports mounted from hospitals nationwide. Dozens of children had liver and kidney damage after taking the drug. Art Brender, a Fort Worth lawyer who was the lead counsel for 369 plaintiffs in the suit, said he believes that many more babies died than the 38 located by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "The manufacturers lied to the hospitals," Brender said. E-Ferol "was on the market for 41/2 months, then there was an FDA investigation and the product was recalled." "We have 42 deaths in our class, and there were another 45 deaths that were litigated before our class came into being," he said. "I don't know that there has been any other type of compound that has caused that amount of damage." Three executives at two companies that made and sold the drug were convicted of fraud, misbranding and selling an unapproved dangerous drug and were sentenced to six months in prison. David Taylor, a lawyer who represented the drug's manufacturer, Carter-Glogau Laboratories of Glendale, Ariz., and the distributor, O'Neal, Jones & Feldman Pharmaceuticals of Maryland Heights, Mo., said few laws regulated vitamins in the 1980s. "The product was recalled because it had collateral effects that were not intended," Taylor said. "Some in the class had no injury and some had profound injury and some were deceased. Like many things in life, there were some unintended consequences. "We wanted to put this lawsuit to rest, and that's what we did with this settlement," he said. Cynthia McDaniel's 13-day-old son Keegan died in a Dallas hospital in January 1984. It wasn't until July 2006, when she got a letter from lawyers telling her that E-Ferol might have been involved in her son's death, that she realized that there was any connection with the supplement, McDaniel, of Coppell, said Friday night. "You think of vitamins of being supplemental and helpful and not ever being able to hurt someone," McDaniel said. "I guess that's the same thing that the doctors and nurses felt. It was a different way of administering this E vitamin that was supposed to help." Some of the 89 hospitals that were found by the CDC to have administered E-Ferol were willing to share that information with the parents and the lawyers advocating their cases. Others had to be forced by legal action to tell the parents whether their children were given the supplement and argued that doctor-patient privilege prohibited them from sharing that information. CIVIA CYCLES: Recalls 800 Hyland Bicycles & Carbon Bicycle Forks ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in cooperation with Civia Cycles, of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 800 Hyland Bicycles and Carbon Bicycle Forks. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. The bicycle fork can crack or break, posing a fall hazard to the consumer. Civia Cycles has received two reports of forks cracking and one report of a fork breaking resulting in an abrasion on face and bruised ribs. This recall involves all Civia Hyland bicycles sold with original equipment carbon fiber forks and all Civia Carbon forks sold as aftermarket products. The forks are black and have the word "Civia" forged into the fork dropout. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10730.html The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at specialty bicycle retailers nationwide from April 2008 through February 2010 for between $1,675 and $3,500 for Civia Hyland complete bicycles and for about $195 for Civia Carbon forks. Consumers should immediately stop riding these bicycles with the recalled forks and contact an authorized Civia Cycles dealer for a free replacement fork. All known users have been contacted. For additional information, contact Civia Cycles toll-free at (877) 774-6208 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.civiacycles.com/ HOTT WINGS: Hooters Franchise Wage Suit Profiled in N.Y. Times -------------------------------------------------------------- Malia Wollan at The New York Times reports that when Dina Partridge of Pleasanton, Calif., first put on her Hooter Girl uniform in 2004, she was the single mother of a toddler daughter, she said, and she felt lucky. "There were 1,200 applicants, and I was one out of 80 that got hired," she said. "I thought I was going to make a lot of money and meet celebrities." Instead, Ms. Partridge was shocked not by the randy customers, the short-shorts and the plunging necklines, but because she says she spent her own money for her uniforms, worked long shifts without breaks and did not get her share of tips. Now, Ms. Partridge, 30, is the lead plaintiff in what is perhaps the least salacious lawsuit imaginable against a restaurant chain that capitalizes on female sexuality. The Bay Area has become the epicenter for a cascade of similar lawsuits against Hooters franchises across the state alleging that the restaurants failed to follow state law about its obligations to its workers. "These are wage-and-hour class-action lawsuits," said the plaintiffs' lawyer: Burton F. Boltuch, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BURTON F. BOLTUCH The 555 City Center Building 555 12th Street, Suite 1440 Oakland, CA 94607-4046 Telephone: 510.844.3415 "That's it." There is a reason for this geographic concentration of suits. "California is the most stringent and most expansive when it comes to pro-employee laws," said William B. Gould IV, a law professor at Stanford University and the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. Employment-related class-action lawsuits increased more than 300 percent in the state from 2000 to 2005, according to a 2009 report by the Judicial Council of California's Administrative Office of the Courts. California leads the nation in the number of wage-and-hour class-action lawsuits, though Florida leads in per-capita filings, according to a report by Littler Mendelson, a national law firm. The first Hooters restaurant in Northern California opened in San Francisco on Fisherman's Wharf in 2003. It was owned by Nick and Shirley Trani and their son John. The Tranis' company, Hott Wings Inc., later opened Hooters restaurants in Campbell, Fremont, Dublin and San Bruno. In addition, the senior Tranis own other fast-food franchises in the Central Valley. The Tranis' lawyer: Matthew J. Ruggles, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 390 Sacramento, CA 95833-4227 Telephone: (916) 830-7200 E-mail: mruggles@littler.com called the claims against the family, its franchises and its company "vastly overstated." All three Tranis declined to be interviewed for this article. The workers' lawyers filed the case in May in Alameda County Court on behalf of 19 former Hooter Girls against four Bay Area Hooters franchises and their owners. Last month, Mr. Boltuch filed similar suits in Sacramento and Los Angeles Counties. The common claim is that Hooter Girls had to buy their uniforms - the low-cut tank tops emblazoned with the Hooters owl, orange short-shorts, "Cal-Sun" footless pantyhose, white slouchy socks and high-top Skechers sneakers. State law requires businesses that mandate distinctive uniforms to pay for them. "Not all states say, as California does, that a uniform that is distinctive must be paid for by an employer," Mr. Gould said. The suits also claim that Hooters employees were not given their adequate share of tips, were not granted legally mandated breaks for rest and meals, were not paid, or were paid insufficiently, for special events like bikini car washes and contests, golf tournaments, car shows and "winging" -- when Hooters Girls went out to local businesses and gave out free chicken wings. The three class-action lawsuits do not dwell on lasciviousness or push-up bras. In challenging labor practices at Hooters franchises, they highlight how stringent California's wage and hour laws are, and how these minimum-wage and overtime standards make it easier to file large class-action suits against companies like Hooters in California than anywhere else. Unlike federal law, California law requires employees to get rest periods, lunch breaks and compensation for any time worked over eight hours a day. Federal wage and hour laws mandate that employees choose to be part of a class-action lawsuit, which means that labor lawyers must track down employees and convince them to join a case. But in California, current and former employees are presumed to be part of a class-action lawsuit, which means more plaintiffs and bigger settlements, Mr. Gould said. Mr. Boltuch's filing three class-action lawsuits against Hooters franchises means that he will be representing all the Hooter Girls, dishwashers and busboys in the state - more than 6,000 people. The first Hooters opened in Clearwater, Fla., in 1983. The privately owned company has kept the Hooter Girl look virtually unchanged as it grew to 450 locations in 43 states and 26 countries from South Korea to the Virgin Islands. In every venue, the signature uniforms are the same, and workers are required to wear them. Mr. Ruggles, the Tranis' lawyer, said in an interview that his clients did buy uniforms - two - for all Bay Area Hooters girls when they were hired; the company periodically replaces them free of charge, he said. Those who choose to buy additional uniforms do so for what Mr. Ruggles called "personal convenience." "Many of the girls are young and in school, and sometimes they don't want to do laundry as frequently, so they might want to buy three or four uniforms," he said. Mr. Ruggles said that one former Hooter Girl named in the suit told him that she had bought additional uniforms because of weight gain. "If somebody just decides, 'Gee whiz, my shorts are too tight,' that is not something that we are responsible for," he said. He added that plaintiffs claimed to have spent $1 million on uniforms over the past four years, while Mr. Ruggles said his initial calculations suggested that the number was "only a tiny fraction of that amount." The Tranis hope to reach a settlement in mediation, Mr. Ruggles said. "Class-action litigation is very expensive and distracting," he said, "and the Tranis would like to put this entire dispute behind them." The restaurant, which has the business motto "You can sell the sizzle, but you have to deliver the steak," has had to deal with a lot of litigation. In 1997 Hooters of America paid $3.75 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by men who had been denied jobs. Part down-home restaurant part cleavage peddler, Hooters has managed to appeal to a frat boy demographic while maintaining a children's 's menu. "Sex appeal is legal and it sells," the company's Web site says. Even the bug-eyed trademark owl is not innuendo-free. "The chain acknowledges that many consider 'Hooters' a slang term for a portion of the female anatomy," the site says. "Hooters does have an owl inside its logo and uses an owl theme sufficiently to allow debate to occur over the meaning's intent. The chain enjoys and benefits from this debate." Given Hooters' litigious past and California's strict labor laws, it seemed only a matter of time before a class-action lawsuit was filed here against the chain. "Employers will scream bloody murder about this, but it's clear that California lawyers are on to something here," Mr. Gould said of filing such class-action wage and hour lawsuits. Danielle Sitnyakovsky, 19, is part of the Alameda County lawsuit. She started working at the Hooters near her parent's house in Campbell, when it opened in 2008 to pay for registration and insurance on her first car. Her father was initially not too keen on the idea, but acquiesced. When the Campbell restaurant opened, there were lines out the door. Ms. Sitnyakovsky said she made good tips, especially after she turned 18 and was made a Hooter Girl. The atmosphere at work was fun, she said. Some managers used to make a game out of trying to toss French fries upward on a trajectory designed to land in a woman's cleavage, or they would draw hearts or write their names on the girls' pantyhose, she said. It all seemed lighthearted and flirtatious until grease and ink left stains and Ms. Sitnyakovsky had to buy new tops and tights. "The shorts were the worst," she said. "Even a drop of water would make a stain, and they would make you buy new ones." IRWIN INDUSTRIES: Sued for Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------ Kimo Meyer, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Irwin Industries, Inc., Case No. BC435149 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 2, 2010), asserts unfair business practices and violations of the labor code. Mr. Meyer accuses Irwin Industries of failing to provide second meal periods to employees who worked more than 10 hours in a day, failing to provide third rest periods to employees who worked over 10 hours, not providing complete and accurate itemized wage statements, failing to pay wages for compensable travel time spent from or within the refineries and other facilities and failure to pay former employees all wages due at the time of their discharge. Meyer Industries is an industrial construction and maintenance company serving the power generation industry. Mr. Meyer worked as a pipefitter for Irwin Industries from March 2008 through June 2008 and from August 2008 through April 2009. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 425 Second St., Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 - and - Scot Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERSTEIN, APC 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 447-0100 - and - Ellyn Moscowitz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELLYN MOSCOWITZ, P.C. 1629 Telegraph Avenue, Fourth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 899-6240 JAMES RAY: Accused of Not Refunding Fees for Canceled Events ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that "motivational speaker" James Ray refused to return thousands of dollars to customers after he canceled events in the wake of his indictment for manslaughter, a class action claims in Maricopa County Court. Three people died and 18 were hospitalized after one of Mr. Ray's lengthy sweat- lodge ceremonies in Sedona in October 2009. The class claims Ray and his company, James Ray International, ignored requests for refunds. The plaintiffs say Ray lacks "sufficient assets to conduct the events or refund the pre-paid fees due to transfers to or for the benefit of Ray or entities which he controls." Mr. Ray also failed to warn participants that his events "involved dangerous and reckless activities with substantial risk of bodily and psychological injury and financial loss," according to the complaint. The class says that Mr. Ray collected money upfront for events for which he was not properly qualified or experienced to conduct. Before the widely publicized deaths and Mr. Ray's arrest, Mr. Ray promoted his "Harmonic Wealth philosophies and techniques" with "sophisticated sales techniques to obtain pre-paid fees for future events and event packages where, Ray represented, he would lead participants in more advanced instruction and activities," according to the complaint. Plaintiff Susan Smyser says she paid $7,995 for two events to be held in April; Patricia Franklin says she paid $3,346 for an event in November 2009 and another in May this year; Kim Wilson says she paid $12,586 for four events. They estimate that the class contains more than 1,000 people. More than 50 participants at Mr. Ray's "Spiritual Warrior" event in Sedona were crammed into a 415-square-foot sweat lodge after fasting for 36 hours. Three people died and 18 were hospitalized for dehydration and burns, according to media reports. The class seeks damages for fraud, breach of contract and negligence. It is represented by Todd Jackson with Butler, Oden and Jackson in Tucson. A copy of the Complaint in Smyser, et al. v. James Ray International, Inc., et al., Case No. CV2010-010948 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/PhxCult.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd Jackson, Esq. BUTLER, ODEN & JACKSON, P.C. 145 South 6th Ave. Tucson, AZ 85701 Telephone: 520-884-0024 E-mail: tjackson@boj-law.com KAMAL NATH: Accused of Leading 1984 Mob Killings in India --------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that Sikhs who survived a 1984 massacre at a temple in New Delhi have filed a federal class action against a former member of the Indian parliament, who they say planned the riots and led a murderous mob. "In the four-day carnage, 3,000 Sikhs, men, women and children were killed in New Delhi alone while thousands were left maimed, wounded, raped and burnt," Sikhs For Justice and two survivors say. "Shops, properties and Sikh temples were ransacked, looted and torched. As a result, more than 300,000 Sikhs were displaced." The slaughter followed the Oct. 31, 1984 assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her two bodyguards, "who happened to be Sikhs," according to the complaint. Sikhs for Justice claims that Kamal Nath, then a member of the Indian Parliament, led a mob of 4,000 people at a historic Sikh temple, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Sahib. Plaintiffs Jasbir Singh and Mohinder Singh say 24 members of their family were killed by the mobs and their home was burned during the first week of November 1984. The class claims that members of Parliament and senior members of the Indian National Congress planned the massacre on the night of Prime Minister Gandhi's assassination. Outside the Rakab Ganj temple, the mob captured Ajit Singh and his son, both Sikhs, "and burnt them alive in broad daylight in the presence of thousands, including the defendant," according to the complaint. Witness testimony put Mr. Nath at the site of the Singhs' execution, leading the mob, though Mr. Nath told the Justice Nanavati Commission he thought Hindus were being held hostage in the temple and tried to disperse the crowd, according to the complaint. The commission found Mr. Nath's testimony "vague," a "little strange" and inconsistent with other reports, but formal charges were never brought, the complaint states. "After more than 25 years of massacre, the Indian government and its prosecuting agencies have failed to prosecute and convict a single leader who was responsible for widespread killings of Sikhs," the complaint states. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, alleging crimes against humanity and wrongful deaths, and is represented by Avtar Singh. Violence returned to India this week when at least 76 soldiers were killed in ambushes led by Maoist insurgents in Chhattisgarh, a state in central India. Maoist rebels have been fighting for communist rule during a 43-year insurgency, taking control of vast territories throughout eastern and central India known as the "red corridor." More than 6,000 people have died during the insurgency, and the rebels operate in 20 of the country's 28 states. The case is Sikhs for Justice, et al. v. Nath, Case No. 10-cv-02940 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.). LAWYERS TITLE: Sued for Non-Payment of Vested Severance Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Ray, Lori Northcutt, and Robert Hagan, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, et al., Case No. 30-2010-00359306 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. Apr. 2, 2010), assert breach of contract, unfair competition and violations of California's Code. Mr. Ray, who worked for Defendant Commonwealth Title from 1989 until 1996, and continued to work for Lawyers Title (which acquired Commonwealth Title in 1996) until December 2008 when his employment was terminated, alleges that Lawyers Title has not paid him any severance pay. Prior to acquisition of Commonwealth Title by Lawyers Title, Commonwealth Title had been held for a period by LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. In December 2008, Plaintiffs and other class members received a memorandum from the holding company that because of its bankruptcy filing, it is unable to pay severance claims under the LandAmerica Severance Benefit Plan. Mr. Ray says that this not apply to him because under California law, severance pay cannot be taken away by an employer once it has been earned and accrued by employees. Mr. Ray further says that LandAmerica's claimed inability to pay severance claims due to its bankruptcy filing is irrelevant to Lawyers Title's and Commonwealth Title's respective obligations to pay vested severance benefits because Lawyers Title and Commonwealth Title are not part of the LandAmerica bankruptcy. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 - and - William Pettersen, Esq. 1620 Union St. San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-0123 MBS DIRECT: Accused in Mich. Suit of Deceptive Sales Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims the nation's biggest mail-order textbook provider overcharges students for books, and pays secret kickbacks to schools that push its services. The class claims that MBS Direct, a unit of MBS Textbook Exchange, has exclusive contracts with more than 600 schools, which force students and parents to pay more for required texts, some of which are available much cheaper, even through MBS. MBS sales agents "solicit exclusive relationships with universities and parochial or non-public secondary schools across the country in which the schools agree to direct their students to purchase textbooks from MBS, at artificially inflated prices, in exchange for receiving a kickback from MBS," according to the complaint. Schools provide MBS with a list of books for each class it offers, and tell students to go to the MBS Web site, type in their classes, and buy the books, according to the complaint. "If a school declines to receive a kickback, the books are sold at a lower price to that school's students, rather than the higher price charged at the schools receiving kickbacks," the class claims. It adds that students and parents are not made aware of the price discrepancy. The class claims that to prevent students from buying textbooks elsewhere, MBS and its school business partners will not reveal the International Standard Book Numbers for its textbooks. Students cannot be sure they are buying the correct edition without the ISBN numbers. MBS also overcharges for used textbooks, and "generally does not offer enough used textbooks for the demand, thus forcing most buyers to purchase a new book at the higher price," according to the complaint. Nor does MBS fairly reimburse students from whom it buys used texts, though MBS falsely claims to offer the lowest prices on textbooks and offers "top dollar" for buybacks, the class claims. MBS runs another Web site where students can get books at a much cheaper price, with free shipping on orders over $25, which MBS - - and the schools receiving kickbacks -- do not reveal to students, according to the complaint. If a school drops its contract with MBS, MBS will direct students to the alternate Web site, to keep them as customers, the class claims. Despite its privacy policy, MBS provides the schools with listings of "which students purchased which textbooks at which prices," which it touts to schools in its promotional materials, the class says. Some Michigan schools that have contracts with MBS include Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, the University of Michigan, University Liggett School, Cranbrook Kingswood Schools and Detroit Country Day, amongst others, according to the complaint. The class demands restitution, disgorgement and damages for violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. A copy of the Complaint in Stalker v. MBS Direct LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-11355 (E.D. Mich.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/Textbooks.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Jayson E. Blake, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM P.C. 950 West University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: 248-841-2200 MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settles Illegal Alien Lawsuit for $18 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Guzzardi at VDARE.com reports that in a victory for all American workers who have been displaced by illegal aliens or who have had their wages depressed by cheap labor, a class of plaintiffs have reached a settlement agreement in a six-year old lawsuit that was filed in federal district court in Rome, Georgia in 2004 and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006. Represented by co-lead council Howard Foster of Chicago, Ill.- based Foster PC, the plaintiffs in Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. Case No. 04-cv-00003 (N.D. Ga.), are legally- authorized, hourly-paid workers who alleged that their wages at Mohawk Industries, Inc. facilities in Northwest Georgia were depressed by the hiring of illegal aliens. Mohawk, the leading worldwide producer of flooring, recorded annual 2008 net sales of $6.8 billion. The settlement, which is also a major win for the patriotic immigration reform movement, entitles approximately 50,000 former and current hourly-paid Mohawk employees to claim awards from an $18 million settlement fund, the largest payout ever in this type of litigation. Mohawk is responsible for paying out a portion of the funds. But the majority will be contributed by Zurich American Insurance Company, Mohawk's insurance carrier. Also, Mohawk has agreed to conduct much needed and long-overdue training regarding immigration laws that make it illegal to knowingly hire workers who are not authorized to be employed in the U.S. A short history of the case: Norman Carpenter, a Mohawk production employee and shift manager, went to his supervisor to complain about the numerous illegal workers in his midst. Concerned by Carpenter's complaints, Mohawk management eventually contacted company lawyers as well as its lead lawyer, Juan Morillo, of the prestigious UK law firm Clifford Chance's DC office, who was ultimately dispatched to Georgia to meet with Carpenter. What transpired at that fateful meeting is now the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit that is still pending. Carpenter alleges that Morillo threatened to have him fired if he said another word about illegal workers to anyone, particularly to Foster and his colleagues prosecuting the RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act) case. Nevertheless, Carpenter did complain to others. He was fired, and sued Mohawk for violating his civil rights by terminating his employment and violating the federal whistleblower protection law. Along with his Mohawk co-worker Christina Martinez, Carpenter filed sworn statements about Mohawk's hiring of illegal workers and Morillo's intimidation. According to court documents, Martinez had the following exchange with Mohawk Human Resources representative Becky Hale. In her declaration, Martinez said: "Ms Hale informed me that she was aware that many Mohawk employees are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. "She [Hale] informed me however that if these employees come to Mohawk with social security numbers and false identification she could and would hire them and that Mohawk would employ them." To bolster his case of wrongful termination, Carpenter subpoenaed Morillo for his deposition. Morillo asserted the attorney-client privilege, contending that anything he said to Carpenter was in his capacity as Mohawk's lawyer. U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy of the Northern District of Georgia rejected Morillo's claim and ordered him to be deposed, but allowed Mohawk to seek appeal of the order. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court which, on December 8, 2009, in a unanimous opinion, ironically written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor (her first), ruled for Carpenter. See Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, slip op. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-678.pdf(U.S. 2009). This means, Morillo will now have to be deposed by Carpenter's lawyers and the truth surrounding the company's efforts to conceal its illegal hiring may come to light. Commenting on the class action settlement, Mohawk's attorney Morillo said: "Mohawk is pleased to have reached a settlement that allows the company to put behind it the expense and distraction associated with this case." In settling the case, Mohawk does not admit any of the plaintiffs' allegations of wrongdoing. "Mohawk has always trained its employees to comply with the immigration and workplace laws, and this settlement affirms the company's commitment to a continued culture of compliance," Morillo commented. "Mohawk has provided and continues to provide good jobs with great benefits to tens of thousands of workers in Georgia and elsewhere." Foster, however, noted the lengthy procedural history of the case, which included three years of litigation to resolve Mohawk's appeal of Judge Murphy's 2004 ruling that the plaintiffs stated a claim under the federal and Georgia RICO laws. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that ruling, Mohawk convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case in 2006. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that it had "improvidently" accepted the case and sent it back to the Eleventh Circuit which again ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed in 2007. The parties then undertook discovery on whether the case should be granted class action status. In 2008, Judge Murphy denied the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, precluding the proposed class of employees from obtaining relief in this case. But the Eleventh Circuit accepted the plaintiffs' request to review that decision, and in May 2009, reversed the denial of class certification and sent the case back to Judge Murphy to reconsider the question of class certification. Settlement discussions occurred after the two sides agreed on a mediator. A final resolution was reached in December 2009 at the federal courthouse in Rome, Georgia and then documented by the parties. Foster, who argued the employees' case in the Supreme Court, said: "We consider this a hard-fought case and are pleased with the settlement for the class. The class will receive significant monetary relief and the company has agreed to train its personnel regarding the verification of employment eligibility." Judge Murphy will now be asked to preliminarily approve the settlement between Mohawk and the employees. Upon Judge Murphy's approval, notice of the settlement will be mailed to the class members, and the Court will then hold a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement. Foster's class action triumph over Mohawk is his second on behalf of betrayed American workers. In 2006, Foster negotiated a $1.3 million settlement against the Washington-based Zirkle Fruit Company, which by some estimates had at one time only 30 percent of its employees legally authorized workers. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Opening Arguments in Gender Bias Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Vesselin Mitev at the New York Law Journal reports that the trial of a $200 million gender discrimination class action suit against Swiss-owned drug maker Novartis Pharmaceuticals began last week with the defense saying the company "makes no claim that we are perfect" but denying that it underpaid women or intentionally promoted them less frequently than men. "This isn't a company with a glass ceiling," defense attorney Richard Schnadig told the jury of six women and four men in the closely watched case. The 5,600-plaintiff class in Velez v. Novartis, 04-cv-9194, claims that Novartis actively discriminated against women by discouraging pregnancies and ignoring complaints of sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In opening arguments, plaintiffs' counsel Katherine Kimpel said that the company fostered a culture that "ignores and undermines legitimate concerns and complaints," including failing to discipline a manager who used derogatory names for women, asked female sales representatives to sit in his lap, and showed them pornographic images. The suit also alleges that only 30 percent of the company's district managers were women. While Schnadig did not dispute that more men than women became managers at the company, he said the 14,000-member sales force was evenly split and the disparity among male and female supervisors was "hardly surprising." The "predominantly male" group of managers was a result of women coming into the profession at a "slower rate" combined with the length of time it took to rise through the ranks to become a manager, Schnadig said. He also noted that the rigorous training required to become a district manager, including a three-month course at the company's East Hanover, N.J., headquarters, discouraged women from signing up. The process was "extremely disruptive" for women who were the "principal maternal force in the home" and now had to deal with additional administrative responsibilities, Schnadig said. To combat the dwindling number of women in supervisory positions, the company implemented a "Women in Leadership" mentoring program consisting of successful female district managers, regional directors and vice presidents who would help "convince reluctant potential managers" to give the job a chance, Schnadig said. Progress was being made, he urged, although "not overnight." Kimpel characterized the mentoring program as something that looked good on paper but lacked any real substance, calling it a "PR campaign." In reality, she said, the company made it difficult for women to become managers as supervisors who evaluated potential candidates had almost unlimited power to rate them "subjectively" rather than on "objective performance." She pointed to an internal recommendation by a consultant that the company train its managers and supervisors across the board to "foster consistencies" in evaluations and oversight protocols as evidence that Novartis was warned of its discriminatory practices but "never fixed the problems." Kimpel told the jury that it would hear testimony from plaintiffs who had been denied promotion because they became pregnant or took the full amount of maternity leave to which they were entitled. One plaintiff was urged to have an abortion while another was asked if she could give the company "two child-free years," said Kimpel, of Sanford Wittels & Heisler in Washington, D.C. Schnadig took issue with the sincerity of some of the plaintiffs' claims, pointing out that one plaintiff, Holly Waters, was fired for falsifying that she had made a sales call to a doctor, a serious offense. Finally, he said, some of the plaintiffs did not file any complaints with human resources during or after their time with Novartis, effectively giving the company "no opportunity to rectify what was wrong." Schnadig, of Vedder Price in Chicago, said the company did follow through on complaints it knew about, citing the firing of the manager who invited employees to sit in his lap and had a penchant for dirty jokes. The manager was the "poster boy for bad behavior and he got fired," Schnadig said, urging jurors to keep in mind that "some bad experiences" did not represent the company, which like every company "has a few jerks." Former Novartis sales representative Bernice Dezelan, one of the 14 plaintiffs who are expected to testify in the five-week trial, told the jury she was struggling to play catch-up from the first day she met her all-male team at a Philadelphia diner. Her teammates, she claimed, did not share key tips about the territory, such as how doctors perceived Novartis' products and what operating hours offices kept. "I was going to offices that were closed," she said. But as a "tough little cookie," as she referred to herself, Dezelan was determined to win over her colleagues and proposed a solution to her male team members -- everyone would schedule social events through her and she would keep a calendar so that all would be included. When her teammates kept finding excuses not to include her at dinner parties, she went to her manager, a woman, who told her to make it work, said Dezelan. "She was very dismissive . . . she didn't address my problem at all," said Dezelan, who worked for Novartis from 2003 to 2006. The trial before the Honorable Colleen McMahon in the Southern District of New York continues this week. REED ELSEVIER: Suit Complains About LexisNexis E-Filing Order ------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed this week accuses LexisNexis and a Texas presiding judge of violating the Texas and U.S. constitutions by forcing private litigants to use only LexisNexis, a division of the English-Dutch conglomerate Reed Elsevier, in order to file court documents in Montgomery County. The order mandating the use of LexisNexis has forced at least 5,000 people to pay fees higher than those allowed by state law, according to San Antonio lawyer Robert Mays, who filed the action. "It is a violation of the Texas Constitution that requires access to open courts," he said. "If it was an option, I would have no problem. But the way it is implemented, if you hand documents or mail them to the district clerk, she returns them unfiled." The class action says the order by Judge Frederick Edwards requiring the use of LexisNexis results in higher fees than allowed by Texas statute and discriminates by allowing government employees to avoid the fees altogether. "Everybody who files a lawsuit is entitled to be treated the same and charged the same fee for filing and that's not what's happening in Montgomery County," Mr. Mays said. The lawsuit names Edwards as a defendant, along with Montgomery County District Court clerk Barbara Gladden Adamick and Reed Elsevier dba LexisNexis. Lead plaintiff Karen McPeters claims Ms. Adamick based her e-filing mandate on an order that Judge Edwards signed on Feb. 10, 2003, an order that "was signed with a blank line on the first page of the order" where the case number is supposed to be. The clerk then used the order to force everyone to use LexisNexis, according to the complaint. "Judge Frederick Edwards required Karen McPeters, as a party to a civil lawsuit, to exclusively use LexisNexis fileandserve, an online electronic filing service, to file and serve documents and pleadings in her lawsuit," the complaint states. "Since then, Adamick has directed many civil litigants, including Karen McPeters, that each is required to exclusively use LexisNexis on-line e-filing. ... Barbara Adamick's direction to civil litigants is based on Judge Edward's 2003 e-filing order. "For each new civil lawsuit that qualifies under the provisions of the 2003 order, the District Court Clerk apparently is supposed to enter the new cause number in the blank on a copy of Judge Edward's 2003 e-filing order," according to the complaint. But Ms. McPeters claims "[t]here is no standing order, signed by all of the District Judges in Montgomery County, establishing e-filing requirements for one, or more, of the courts of Montgomery County." The complaint continues: "Barbara Gladden Adamick, the District Court Clerk of Montgomery County, Texas, enforced the requirement for Karen McPeters, and other similarly situated civil litigants, to use online E-filing by: "(a) refusing to file a document tendered to her in person; "(b) returning unfiled any document tendered to her by mail for filing, and "(c) returning a document tendered and filed, with a purported cancellation of the District Court Clerk file mark, and a letter directing the preparer of the document to file the document through LexisNexis." Ms. McPeters claims Ms. Adamick "disregarded the known and obvious consequences of her actions," and LexisNexis has billed her for more than $444, which she paid. Ms. McPeters claims that the plan "has been in place since 1997," and that LexisNexis "fees and charges are not authorized by law." The complaint adds that LexisNexis and Montgomery County have profited financially from their exclusive deal, and that LexisNexis has billed more than 5,000 civil litigants in Montgomery County. The dispute started last fall with the clerk allegedly exerting power beyond that normally given to court clerks. Ms. McPeters filed a Rule 202 petition in November 2009, seeking "to investigate and determine the administrative remedies for refund of the LexisNexis fees and charges." The petition was assigned to Judge Edwards, but Edwards' staff allegedly told Ms. McPeters that the case would be reassigned, the lawsuit states. Ms. Adamick then returned the petition, stamped "VOID," even though Ms. McPeters had filed it electronically, according to the complaint. Under Judge Edwards' 2003 order, state of Texas, Child Protective Services, people involved in adoption actions, and some divorce and annulment litigants do not have to pay LexisNexis to file, according to the complaint. The complaint adds: "Judge Edwards' 2003 order was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time he entered the order, to wit: One may not discriminate against certain classes of civil litigants in deciding who must use online e-filing. One may not discriminate in favor of all criminal litigants, and other classes of civil litigants. Doing so violates Karen McPeters' rights, and other similarly situated persons' equal protection rights." Ms. McPeters wants Montgomery County enjoined from requiring that court documents be filed electronically through LexisNexis. She calls the process a RICO conspiracy that unconstitutionally violates due process and equal protection. She seeks exemplary damages. A copy of the Complaint in McPeters v. Edwards, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01103 (S.D. Tex.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/LexNex.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Mays, Jr., Esq. 8626 Tesoro Dr., Suite 820 San Antonio, TX 78217 Telephone: 210-657-7772 RHODE ISLAND: Suit Complains About Truancy Court Program -------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria D'Angelo at Courthouse News Service reports that the State of Rhode Island uses its Truancy Court to discipline and punish students with learning and medical disabilities and other problems, rather than to help them, nine families say in a class action in Superior Court. And they say the Truancy Court, a branch of the Family Court, incarcerates students at the State Training School without due process. The parents say that teachers and administrators declared their children "wayward" because of their special needs, not because they were truants. One mother says she attended a truancy hearing for her son, who suffers from a moderate form of sickle-cell anemia. She says he was threatened with jail if he did not attend school for 30 days straight. Fearing arrest, she says, she rushed home from the court and took him to school though he was ill. Within two hours, the school had to call an ambulance to take the boy to the hospital. The mother says the court dismissed her son's case at his next hearing. But she says that because the Truancy Court enforces the law "in an arbitrary and capricious manner," she fears that she and her son may have to go through the whole process again. The Rhode Island Truancy Courts were created in 1999 by the Family Court's Chief Justice Jeremiah. According to the court Web site: "The stated purpose of permitting the adjudication of 'wayward child' truancy petitions in the children's schools, so that those children might be able to access school and community services more quickly and efficiently than they would have been able had they been required to travel to the Family Court to have the petitions adjudicated." Five magistrates preside over Truancy Court for 150 schools. The parents say the Truancy Court violates state and federal law by denying children timely notice of the charges against them, by failing to investigate properly whether the charges are valid, and by not allowing the families to rebut them. They also say the court withholds transcripts of its proceedings, and if the students admit to the charges and agree to abide by the rules set forth by the magistrates, they are denied the right to challenge school officials who claim they break the terms. And they say the children's parents and guardians are subjected to punitive orders of the Truancy Court, though they are not part of the proceedings against the children. The families say the failure of the Truancy Court is indicated by the increase in the high school dropout rate from 4 percent in 2003 to 5.8 percent in 2007. The parents say the Truancy Court gets it exactly wrong: embarrassing and frustrating students, many of whom should not be subjected to truancy proceedings in the first place, to the point that they feel helpless and eventually drop out. The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and an injunction barring the defendants from further truancy proceedings against them. Their lead counsel is Thomas Lyons with the ACLU. A copy of the Complaint in Boyer, et al. v. Jeremiah, et al., Case No. PC-10-1858 (R.I. Super. Ct., Providence Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/08/Truancy.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas W. Lyons, Esq. RHODE ISLAND AFFILIATE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION STRAUSS, FACTOR, LAING & LYONS One Davol Square, Suite 305 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: 401-456-0700 - and - Amy R. Tabor, Esq. RHODE ISLAND AFFILIATE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION HARDY, TABOR & CHUDACOFF 24 Spring St. Pawtucket, RI 02860 Telephone: 401-727-1616 - and - Robin L. Dahlbert, Esq. Yelena Konanova, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-549-2500 - and - Deborah N. Archer, Esq. NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL RACIAL JUSTICE PROJECT 185 West Broadway New York, NY 10013 Telephone: 212-431-2100 SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: D. N.J. Securities Fraud Case Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., the leading global provider of on-demand transaction management software platforms, disclosed that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has granted Synchronoss' motion to dismiss the purported consolidated securities class action complaint filed against Synchronoss and certain of its officers. The lawsuit had alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on statements concerning the Company's financial and business prospects. In its Order dated April 7, 2010, the Court dismissed, without prejudice, all claims against all defendants. "Unfortunately, many public companies are too often faced with lawsuits that have no factual or legal merit, driven by certain individuals looking to profit at shareholders' expense," said Stephen G. Waldis, Chief Executive Officer and President, Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. "We are gratified with the court's decision to dismiss this case at the outset, as it should never have been brought in the first place," said Jordan Hershman, Esq., at Bingham McCutchen, lead counsel for Synchronoss. About Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Synchronoss Technologies -- http://www.synchronoss.com/-- is the leading global provider of on-demand transaction management technology. Synchronoss' software platforms automate subscriber activation, order management and service provisioning for all connected-devices, across any communication service, from any channel. The company's ConvergenceNow(R), ConvergenceNow(R) Plus+(TM) and InterconnectNow(TM) technology platforms automate a wide variety of transactions across multiple delivery channels and networks, enabling telecommunication service providers, cable operators, retailers/ e-tailers and OEMs to accelerate and monetize their go-to-market with connected-devices while addressing back-office fragmentation, and delivering an improved customer experience at lower costs. TEVIS OIL: MTBE Trial Underway in Carroll County, Md. ----------------------------------------------------- Brent Jones at The Baltimore Sun reports that a Carroll County, Md., jury is expected to continue hearing evidence next week in a class action lawsuit accusing a local oil company of polluting water wells with an additive linked to cancer in lab animals. At least a half-dozen Finksburg residents are suing Tevis Oil Inc. after methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, detected in gasoline at a company-owned Shell station at Suffolk Road and Route 140 was found to have affected 23 neighboring wells in 2002. Witnesses for the plaintiffs were called this week in the case, which accuses Tevis of negligence, trespass and nuisance. The plaintiffs say Tevis knew for years that the hazardous chemicals were present at the Shell station and had escaped as liquid and vapor. Defense attorneys, who started calling witnesses late this week, are arguing that the company did everything in its power to fix the problem after it was discovered, and that its effect on the residents is unclear. Testimony is expected to end Friday, with the case going to the jury by April 19, according to Howard Goldberg, lead attorney for Tevis Oil. Attorney Bruce Hill of the Peter G. Angelos law firm said the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages. MTBE is a suspected carcinogen whose effects in drinking water have not been determined. It was detected at or above the reportable level -- 20 parts per billion -- in water at the Tevis station site and in neighboring wells, according to county health officials. The Maryland Department of the Environment later identified the station as the source of pollution. But county officials at the time praised Tevis' response, which included providing bottled water to residents and volunteering to pay for the installation of a filtration system at a day care center across Route 140 from the station. Tevis also installed carbon-filtration systems that have lowered concentrations of MTBE in water at the station, according to the county Health Department. MTBE makes gasoline burn more cleanly, and it was required in 1990 by the Environmental Protection Agency in states such as Maryland that have high levels of ozone pollution in summer. Studies on inhaling MTBE in large doses have shown that it causes cancer in laboratory rats. Some people exposed to MTBE while pumping gasoline, driving cars, or working in gas stations have reported headaches, nausea, dizziness and mental confusion, according to the state Department of the Environment, but the levels of exposure in those cases are unknown. And while the additive did make the air cleaner, officials said, it has raised concerns about water pollution in recent years. This has resulted in stricter state requirements for gas stations in north-central Maryland, where underground water is drawn from fractured rock. MTBE is no longer used in gasoline sold in Maryland. Refineries voluntarily stopped using it in 2006 after several states banned the additive and multiple lawsuits were filed. Last year, a Baltimore County jury awarded more than $150 million to residents who sued Exxon Mobil over a leak at an Exxon station in Jacksonville in 2006. About 26,000 gallons of gasoline seeped into groundwater. The company has filed an appeal. Two years ago, 12 major oil companies, including BP, Shell, Sunoco and Chevron, agreed to pay $423 million to settle MTBE- related lawsuits with 153 public water systems across the country. TOYOTA MOTOR: JPMDL Transfers Class Action Suits to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Dionne Searcey at The Wall Street Journal reports that a federal panel selected a U.S. district court judge in California known for parsing complex cases to hear the growing body of lawsuits against Toyota Motor Corp. for sudden-acceleration incidents in its vehicles. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled Friday that federal Judge James V. Selna in Santa Ana will hear the approximately 100 federal suits filed around the country that blame the Japanese auto maker for problems tied to incidents where consumers say its vehicles have accelerated out of control. The appointment is the first major step toward resolving the numerous suits that blame Toyota for everything from a loss in resale value to serious injuries and deaths. It will trigger a frenzy among plaintiffs' attorneys vying for a handful of spots that the judge will hand out to take the lead in the litigation. Judge John Heyburn II, chairman of the panel, called Judge Selna "well regarded and skilled" in the panel's order Friday. "Judge Selna's 28 years of private law practice at the very highest levels and in some of the most complex cases leaves him well prepared for a case of this magnitude," Judge Heyburn said. Judge Selna is a Stanford University law school graduate who was appointed to the court by then-President George W. Bush in 2003. He will decide how or whether to pool the cases into class actions and will make rulings on evidence and experts, said Richard J. Arsenault, a Louisiana attorney who has filed suits against Toyota. His record includes complex corporate cases. Judge Selna presided over a long-running patent infringement case between chipmakers Qualcomm Inc. and Broadcom Corp., ruling in 2008 that Qualcomm had violated an injunction by selling chips containing Broadcom's patented technologies and failing to pay royalties. He presided over a case seeking class action status brought by a laptop computer buyer against PC maker eMachines, asserting false advertising and other violations of state consumer protection laws. The judge carefully parsed his rulings, finding only some of the claims were actionable. "Describing a product as 'quality' or as having 'high performance criteria' are the types of subjective characterizations that Illinois courts have repeatedly held to be mere puffing," he said in dismissing one of the claims in November 2005. In the Toyota matter, the company as well as several plaintiffs' attorneys had argued the cases should be heard in the Central District, which is situated close to Toyota's U.S. headquarters in Torrance, Calif. For Toyota, the decision will mean considerable cost savings because it won't have to fly witnesses from Japan or elsewhere to jurisdictions across the U.S. The panel weighed the issue in its decision, noting "Toyota maintains its United States corporate headquarters within this district, and relevant documents and witnesses are likely located there. Far more actions are pending there than in any other district," according to the ruling. Toyota said it was pleased with the panel's ruling. Toyota has recalled more than eight million vehicles world-wide in recent weeks in the wake of its sudden acceleration problems. Of the dozens of suits filed in federal court, more than 80 seek class action status; there are numerous others filed in local courts that are not part of the multidistrict litigation. The panel decided Friday that suits dealing with the valuation of vehicles should be pooled together with the serious injury and wrongful death suits at least for the time being, because they likely will seek the same types of evidence as the other suits. Judge Selna will select a committee of a handful of plaintiffs' lawyers to take the lead from among the more than 100 attorneys vying for the top spots. California attorneys will argue they have a home-court advantage and others will tout their experience handling past major, complex cases. "Complex litigation always provides an opportunity for creative thinking and strategic coordination," Mr. Arsenault said. TRANSITIONS OPTICAL: Charged with Monopolistic Activities --------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Gable, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2010-00358220 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. Mar. 29, 2010), accuses the photochromic lens manufacturer of anticompetitive activities by entering into exclusive agreements with its key distributors, thus preventing rivals from using these distributors. Ms. Gable says consumers were harmed because they paid more that what the market would have allowed absent Transition's monopolistic practices. Photochromic lens darken when exposed to sunlight, and fade back to clear when removed from sunlight. Ms. Gable says that Transitions' deceptive practices violated California Business and Professions Code Secs. 17200, et seq., commonly known as the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Louis Kelly, Esq. Behram V. Parekh, Esq. Heather M. Peterson, Esq. KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP 2361 Rosecrans Ave., 4th Flr. El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 E-mail: mlk@KirtlandPackard.com bvp@KirtlandPackard.com hmp@KirtlandPackard.com - and - Mark A. Maasch, Esq. TURNER & MAASCH, INC. 550 West C Street, Suite 1150 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 237-1212 E-mail: mam@tmsdlaw.com UNITED STATES: 9/11 Cleanup Contractors Urge Approval of Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal reports that lawyers for New York City, its contractors and plaintiffs huddled Thursday with special masters in an attempt to reframe a settlement that will satisfy Southern District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the litigation involving respiratory illnesses allegedly caused by toxic dust at the World Trade Center site. The meeting among the lawyers and special masters Aaron D. Twerski and James A. Henderson came before what had been scheduled to be a full fairness hearing this week on a proposed $657 million settlement that could cover up to and beyond 10,000 plaintiffs. But the need for this week's hearing was called into question on March 19, when Hellerstein, to the consternation of attorneys for all sides in In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 100, said the settlement amount was not large enough. Paul Napoli of Worby, Groner & Napoli, Bern for the plaintiffs and James E. Tyrrell Jr. of Patton Boggs for the city were among the lawyers who met with the special masters. On Wednesday, Twerski and Henderson received a special plea from lawyers for the main contractors who responded to the site on and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and handled the removal of debris. Those contractors are Bovis Lend Lease LMB Inc., Turner Construction Co., AMEC Construction Management Inc., Tully Construction Co. Inc. and Plaza Construction Corp. The contractors' attorneys wrote the special masters that the settlement strikes the appropriate balance between paying current claims and saving funds for future liabilities. The monies would come from the $1.1 billion World Trade Center Captive Insurance Co., established by a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2004 to help the city and contractors with insurance costs associated with the aftermath of the terror attacks. That balance between present funds and future reserves was hailed by Margaret Warner of McDermott Will & Emery, the lead lawyer for Captive, at the March 19 hearing. The letter sent by contractors asserts "the absolute necessity that the Captive reserve substantial funds to protect the WTC prime contractors from the risk of potential future litigation concerning the rescue, recovery and debris-removal operations at Ground Zero, and to explain why, at a minimum, the amount reserved under the current settlement is necessary." The letter continues, "It must not be forgotten that the WTC prime contractors, and all of the subcontractors for that matter, selflessly responded to the 9/11 attacks" and "put their companies on the line." The letter was sent by Bovis lawyers Steven Alan Reiss and Theodore E. Tsekerides of Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Turner lawyer John E. Sparling of London Fischer; AMEC and Tully lawyer Mark Joseph Weber of Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass; and Plaza lawyers Kurt W. Hansson and Brian Moran of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker. The concern over future liabilities is critical in litigation clouded by the fact that cancers and other respiratory illnesses may not manifest themselves for some time and new claims are filed every day. "Adding to this uncertainty is the fact that the scope of the potential legal obligations of the WTC prime contractors in the current cases has yet to be clarified by the court, making it impossible to evaluate their potential exposure in any future cases," the attorneys write. The amount of reserves would also be affected should Hellerstein prevail on another priority he outlined on March 19, his insistence that the plaintiffs attorneys' fees, at a 33 percent contingency rate the judge found unacceptable, come out of the Captive fund over and above the compensation paid to the victims. The letter also laments that Hellerstein has yet to decide dispositive motions by the city and the contractors who claim immunity because the rescue response and cleanup came in reaction to a civil emergency. "The WTC prime contractors believe that their responsibility for any injuries suffered by the plaintiffs is highly questionable and, as it relates to uniformed workers (police and firefighters) who make up nearly half of the plaintiff population, essentially implausible," they state. INDEMNITY The contractors' lawyers in the letter complain that "the compelling injustice of simply continuing to expose the WTC prime contractors to unprecedented liability has been largely ignored, masked by the glaring presence of the city as lead defendant and a highly visible pot of funds" held by Captive. To illustrate their potential exposure in the future, they say that, in addition to the current plaintiffs, as many as 90,000 people worked on the debris pile at Ground Zero. The contractors also fault the city, saying that it had initially promised "full indemnity" for work at the site but "has since disavowed that promise." The city, they say, has argued that the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act limits the city's indemnity or contribution obligations to the contractors. But the contractors argue that the act, passed in the wake of 9/11, does not apply to debris-removal claims. The city's Law Department answered with a letter of its own to the special masters late Wednesday. Lawrence S. Kahn, chief litigating assistant corporation counsel, wrote that "the city disagrees with the contractors' assertions in their letter concerning indemnification." But Kahn also made clear that the city "fully supports the contractors' position that a substantial reserve is necessary in order to safeguard against the possibility that numerous lawsuits may be brought in the years ahead by persons claiming to be suffering from conditions resulting from their presence in or about Ground Zero in the period following September 11." Kahn told the special masters that if they granted the contractors' request for a meeting, the city wanted to attend. Lawyers for the city attended the meeting Thursday. ********* 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., Frederick, Maryland USA. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2010. 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 $575 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 Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *