/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131118.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 228
Headlines
AERO SERVICE: Sued for Unpaid Wages and Damages Under FLSA
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Wages
APPLE INC: Tech Giants, App Developers Seek Class Suit Dismissal
ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE: Insurers Settle Sex Abuse Claims
BABOLAT VS: Misleads "Pure Drive" Rackets' Costumers, Suit Says
BAILEY'S CHOICE: Expands Pet Food Recall to Dog Treats
BANFIELD PET: Faces Class Action Over "Optimum Wellness Plan"
BIOTAB NUTRACEUTICALS: FDA Warns on Counterfeit ExtenZe Product
BLANDON ORNAMENTAL: Never Pays Extra Half Time for OT, Suit Says
BMO HARRIS: Allows Lenders to Credit Illegal Loans, Suit Says
BP PLC: Wants Appeals Court to Decertify Oil Spill Class Action
BOCA LAGO: Has Not Paid Overtime Wages to Employees, Suit Claims
BROOKS BROTHERS: Removes "Derby" Suit to Mass. District Court
COMSCORE: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Students to Face Arbitration, 9th Cir. Ruled
EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks to Appeal "Adair" Suit Certification Order
GATSBY ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages and Back Pay
GOLD COAST: Did Not Pay All of Employees' OT Hours, Suit Claims
INT'L FOLLIES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime, Suit Claims
JACK IN THE BOX: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime Wages, Suit Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: To Settle DePuy Hip Implant Suits for $4BB
LES SCHWAB: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in W.D. Wash.
MF GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consolidated Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Certifies Name & Likeness Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Failed to Pay $100K Settlement, Hot Dog Vendors Say
NIPPON YUSEN: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Vehicle Carrier Service
OASIS GOODTIME: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in NY
RALPHS GROCERY: 9th Cir. Affirmed Denial of Bid for Arbitration
RANCH MASONRY: Does Not Pay Hourly Employees' OT Wages, Suit Says
RESTAURANT.COM: 3rd Cir. Allows Coupon Class Action to Proceed
RITE AID: Seeks Dismissal of Record Retrieval Fee Class Action
ROYAL DUTCH: NYMEX Traders Sue Over Brent Oil Price Manipulation
SAKUMA BROTHERS: Faces Wage and Hour Suit by Seasonal Farmworkers
STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS: ShapeMatch Cutting Guides May Cause Injury
TEMPUR-SEALY: Mattresses Emit Chemicals, Class Claims in Calif.
TEXAS BRINE: April 14 Trial Date Scheduled for Class Action
TRI COUNTY SECURITY: Collective Action Seeks Relief Under FLSA
TRUMAN MEDICAL: Refuses to Properly Pay OT Wages, Suit Claims
TRUMAN MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Billing Dispute
UMPQUA BANK: Judge Allows Overdraft Fee Class Action to Proceed
UNILEVER US: Faces "Wells" Suit Over Suave Professionals Product
UNITED SERVICES: "Langan" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
UNITED STATES: Employees Affected by Shutdown Seek Double Pay
UNITED STATES: FEMA Sends Settlement Checks in Formaldehyde Suit
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Abalone Divers Lose Class Action
YAHOO! INC: Faces Two Privacy-Invasion Class Suits in California
* Australian Firms Forgo $204MM in US Class Action Settlements
* Judges Apply Procedural Rules Rigorously After Jackson Reforms
* Shareholder Derivative Suits Replacing Class Actions v. D&Os
*********
AERO SERVICE: Sued for Unpaid Wages and Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Jones, Damonte Pitts and Garreth McCallum, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Aero Service Group,
Inc., Aero Service Partners, LLC, Cheng Lohr and Bob Helman, Case
No. 1:13-cv-03027-JFM (D. Md., October 11, 2013), seeks for unpaid
wages, damages, and relief provided by the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.
Aero Service Group, Inc. and Aero Service Partners, LLC, operate
five restaurants, DuClaw Brewing Company, Zona Mexicana, Sky
Azure, two Villa Fresh Italian Kitchens, and a full service
catering company, Aero Service Catering, at Baltimore/Washington
International Thurgood Marshall Airport located in Hanover,
Maryland. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Howard Benjamin Hoffman, Esq.
600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 304
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (301) 251-3752
Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
E-mail: HBHoffmanEsq@aol.com
- and -
Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq.
401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 337-5411
Facsimile: (410) 938-8668
E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com
- and -
Alexandra Rosenblatt, Esq.
The Public Justice Center
One N Charles St., Suite 200
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 625-9409
Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
E-mail: rosenblatta@publicjustice.org
- and -
Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Esq.
Public Justice Center Inc
One N Charles St., Suite 200
Baltimore, MD 21201-3710
Telephone: (410) 625-9409
Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
E-mail: dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Gibson and Eboni Dowell, on behalf of THEMSELVES and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com.DEDC,
LLC, and SMX, LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-01136 (M.D. Tenn. Oct 11,
2013) is brought as a collective action against the Defendants
seeking all available relief, including uncompensated work like
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Seattle, Washington. SMX, LLC is an
Illinois corporation headquartered in Chicago. Amazon.com
operates warehouses throughout the United States, including the
Amazon Fulfillment Center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where the
Plaintiffs worked. The Defendants jointly operate the
Murfreesboro Facility, which is an approximately one million
square foot logistics facility/fulfillment center.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Scott P. Tift, Esq.
Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC
217 Second Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
stift@barrettjohnston.com
shyatt@barrettjohnston.com
- and -
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
- and -
J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
7982 New LaGrange Road, Suite 5
Louisville, KY 40220
Telephone: (502) 558-6337
E-mail: jchrissanders@yahoo.com
- and -
David O'brien Suetholz, Esq.
KIRCHER, SUETHOLZ AND GRAYSON, PSC
515 Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 40208
Telephone: (502) 636-4333
Facsimile: (502) 636-4342
E-mail: dave@unionsidelawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph A. Nuccio, Esq.
Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (NEW JERSEY OFFICE)
502 Carnegie Center
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (609) 919-6600
Facsimile: (609) 919-6701
E-mail: jnuccio@morganlewis.com
rrosenblatt@morganlewis.com
- and -
Rebecca Eisen, Esq.
Theresa Mak, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: reisen@morganlewis.com
tmak@morganlewis.com
- and -
Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Fifth Third Center
424 Church Street, Suite 1401
Nashville, TN 37219-2392
Telephone: (615) 244-6538
E-mail: restes@dickinsonwright.com
- and -
Andrew G. Madsen, Esq.
Brent D. Knight, Esq.
William F. Dolan, Esq.
JONES DAY (CHICAGO OFFICE)
77 W Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-1692
Telephone: (312) 269-4084
E-mail: amadsen@jonesday.com
bdknight@jonesday.com
wdolan@jonesday.com
- and -
Robert Earl Boston, Esq.
K. Coe Heard, Esq.
WALLER, LANSDEN, DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP (NASHVILLE)
Nashville City Center
511 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-6380
E-mail: bboston@wallerlaw.com
coe.heard@wallerlaw.com
APPLE INC: Tech Giants, App Developers Seek Class Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
in a rare display of cooperation, app developers and tech giants
asked a federal judge to dismiss a flurry of class actions that
accuse the firms of uploading users' address books and invading
their privacy.
The dispute began in March 2012 as a federal class action between
several iPhone users and Path Inc., a social-networking app for
mobile phones. It involved claims that Path gleaned sensitive
data about the location and contact information of its users,
minor children included, and stored such information so insecurely
that it could be accessed by "even an unsophisticated hacker."
A federal judge gutted large portions of that action last year for
lack of evidence that Path intercepted users' communications, a
requisite for the Federal Wiretap Act. After the U.S. government
found that Path had violated Federal Trade Commission rules by
mining and storing data from minors, however, the parties settled
with promises from Path to delete collected data and beef up its
privacy policy.
But the case fired up again after reports surfaced that other app
developers -- including big names like Twitter, Yelp, Instagram
and "Angry Birds" maker Rovio -- deploy a "friend finder" function
to rifle through users' iPhones and iPads, looking to make
connections.
The disgruntled users joined forces to file a massive,
consolidated complaint in Texas. A federal judge there dismissed
the first amended complaint for violating court rules on length --
343 pages for 13 causes of action -- and transferred the second
amended complaint to U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San
Francisco.
Both Apple and the app developers filed separate but similar
motions to dismiss on Oct. 18.
The app developers claim that, despite the length of the current
complaint -- 166 pages and 26 causes of action, including the six
previously dismissed in the original litigation -- the users fail
to show any sort of injury from the friend finder function.
"Plaintiffs' claims boil down to two allegations: first, that apps
to differing degrees either failed to ask permission or to explain
to their users adequately that the process of linking them to
their friends requires access to the list of those friends; and
second, that when transmitting the necessary list of addresses to
their servers, some of the apps failed to encrypt that data,
increasing the risk that a third party might intercept the
information in transit," the 68-page motion filed jointly by the
app developers states. "Plaintiffs heap 18 separate causes of
action on those two allegations, ranging from criminal wiretapping
to trespass, conversion to negligence, and even RICO. None of
those scattershot claims sticks. No plaintiff or putative class
member has been injured. Plaintiffs' theories of injury -- that
the apps' activities impaired their iDevices, diminished the
'economic value' of their address books, or exposed personal
information to unspecified third parties -- are theories that
courts in this and other districts have repeatedly rejected."
Since most of the apps in question are free, the users will have a
hard time showing injury, the app developers said. They also
noted that the alleged actions save users both time and money by
finding their friends and making the connections for them.
"At most, plaintiffs allege defendants copied electronic address
book contacts that were stored in memory on plaintiffs' mobile
devices," the motion states. "Because plaintiffs do not allege
defendants acquired plaintiffs' contacts files while plaintiffs
were transmitting those files to a third party, plaintiffs fail to
allege an 'interception.' This is the same conclusion Judge
Gonzalez-Rogers reached nearly a year ago when dismissing nearly
identical allegations."
The developers also emphasized that the "mere use of the words
'intercepted' and 'transmission' does not magically transform the
copying of data stored on a mobile device into an 'interception'
of a 'communication.'"
Ultimately the class's allegation is "confused," according to the
motion.
"Taking stored information and sending it somewhere is simply not
an 'interception' as courts consistently interpret that term," it
continues.
None of the users claim that the app developers sold the address
books to third parties or did anything with the information other
than connect them to other users, the companies said. They asked
Tigar to dismiss the users' complaint with prejudice, which would
bar them from taking another crack at making their case.
"As this is now the plaintiffs' fourth attempt at these claims,
further amendment would be futile," the app developers said.
In its separate filing, Apple said users' claims against it fail
because Apple isn't responsible for the content of third-party
apps.
"Even if users could make out a separate claim for aiding and
abetting, 'California courts have long held that liability for
aiding and abetting depends on proof the defendant had actual
knowledge of the specific primary wrong the defendant
substantially assisted,'" Apple said, citing Casey v. U.S. Bank.
"Plaintiffs do not even allege that Apple had actual knowledge of
any alleged wrongdoing by the app defendants. Indeed, plaintiffs'
allegations admit that when Apple learned of the alleged app
conduct, it required the app defendants to update their apps
within days."
A hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for January 22, 2014.
Path Inc., of the Defendants, is represented by:
Jedediah Wakefield, Esq.
Tyler G. Newby, Esq.
Kathleen Lu, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-2300
Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
E-mail: jwakefield@fenwick.com
tnewby@fenwick.com
klu@fenwick.com
ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE: Insurers Settle Sex Abuse Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Annysa Johnson, writing for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports
that a group of insurers has agreed to pay the Archdiocese of
Milwaukee an unspecified sum to settle a lawsuit over its
liability for sex abuse claims filed against the church, a move
hailed as a major step toward a resolution of the archdiocese's
nearly three-year-old bankruptcy.
Under the terms of the agreement still to be finalized, London
Market Insurers, including Lloyds of London, would effectively
"buy back" policies they sold to the archdiocese in return for a
release of liability for any current or future claims, according
to court records.
Those general liability insurance policies, uncovered by creditors
during the bankruptcy proceedings, could cost the insurers
hundreds of millions of dollars if they were ruled enforceable,
according to victims' attorneys.
Church Spokesman Jerry Topczewski said on Nov. 12 that the
settlement amount would be spelled out in the archdiocese's
forthcoming plan of reorganization, which must be approved by the
bankruptcy court for it to exit Chapter 11. He said he did not
know when that would be filed.
Settlement talks are continuing with a second carrier, Stonewall
Insurance, according to court records.
"This is just one part of a complex plan that will address the
demands of all the creditors," said Mr. Topczewski, who serves as
chief of staff to Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki. "We're as
anxious as anyone to move this forward."
Michael Finnegan, whose Minnesota law firm represents most of the
575 men and women who filed sex abuse claims in the bankruptcy,
criticized the settlement process for excluding victims. He said
that was a first among bankruptcies filed by Catholic dioceses
across the country.
"Their exclusion from the process falls far short of Archbishop
(Jerome) Listecki's promise to survivors at the outset of this
case to treat them fairly and equitably," Mr. Finnegan said.
Lawyers for London Market Insurers, which includes Lloyds London,
and the archdiocese's creditors committee declined to comment.
It is not immediately clear what creditors would benefit from the
settlement. The archdiocese has filed motions to throw out
virtually all of the claims alleging sexual abuse. Other
creditors include the archdiocese's own pension plans, its health
care plan for retired priests, and at least one bank with a nearly
$5 million mortgage on church property. Certain attorney fees
also would come out of the settlement amount, under a ruling this
year by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Susan V. Kelley.
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in January 2011 as a way to settle the mounting claims
by men and women who alleged they were sexually assaulted as
children by priests and other church workers in the 10-county
archdiocese.
The case has become one of the most contentious and expensive
Catholic Church bankruptcies to date in the United States as
attorneys wrangle over which claims should be compensated and what
archdiocese assets should be tapped for any settlement.
Legal fees and expenses had exceeded $10 million by July 2013,
according to court records. An updated number was not available on
Nov. 12.
The insurance policies are one of the last large assets still
currently in play. A lawsuit over the archdiocese's cemetery
trust fund, worth more than $50 million, is on appeal before the
7th U.S. Circuit.
Kelley has already rejected efforts by the creditors to pursue the
assets of the archdiocese's 200-plus parishes, including more than
$35 million in a Parish Deposit Fund the archdiocese transferred
off its books in 2005. And lawyers for the creditors and the
church have postponed for now any disputes over the archdiocese
headquarters complex known as the Cousins Center, once valued at
$10 million; and the Faith in Our Future fund, a trust created in
2008 to hold the proceeds of a $105 million capital campaign
launched by then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan, now cardinal of New
York.
The archdiocese and its insurers asked U.S. District Judge Rudolph
T. Randa for a 60-day stay of court proceedings in September so
they could enter settlement talks. They filed a motion on Nov. 11
seeking an extension of the stay to finalize their agreement.
A state court had ruled previously that the archdiocese could not
tap its insurance policies in cases where it was accused of fraud,
the underlying allegation in the bankruptcy.
But the archdiocese sued London Market Insurers, Stonewall and
others in federal court alleging the language in their policies
left them liable.
BABOLAT VS: Misleads "Pure Drive" Rackets' Costumers, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Babolat VS North America Inc.,
a Colorado Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:13-cv-07898-GAF-VBK (C.D. Cal., October 25, 2013) alleges that
the Defendants falsely claims that the "Pure Drive" tennis rackets
it sells to the public are the same ones its sponsored players use
on pro tour.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
Amy Tai Wootton, Esq.
HAMNER LAW OFFICES APC
555 West 5th Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 533-4160
Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
awootton@hamnerlaw.com
- and -
Christopher Alexander Olsen, Esq.
OLSEN LAW OFFICES APC
1010 Second Avenue Suite 1835
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 550-9352
Facsimile: (619) 923-2747
E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com
BAILEY'S CHOICE: Expands Pet Food Recall to Dog Treats
------------------------------------------------------
Susan Stokes, writing for Examiner.com, reports that the United
States Food and Drug Administration issued a press release dated
Nov. 6, 2013 announcing the expansion of the pet food recall by
Bailey's Choice.
Bailey's Choice issued a voluntary recall of their chicken jerky
treats at the end of October. MyFoxAtlanta reported the news on
Oct. 31, 2013 from the Georgia Department of Agriculture.
According to the Food Poisoning Bulletin, two lots tested positive
for salmonella. The chicken treats were in various sizes and with
lot dates of June 5, 2013 and Oct. 8, 2013.
The recall expansion announced on Nov. 6, 2013 now includes five-
ounce packages of the following dog treats:
100% Chicken Treat, lot # "Jun 2 2013"
100% Chicken Treat, lot # "Jun 3 2013"
100% Chicken Breast Treat, lot # "Jun 4 2013"
100% Chicken Treat, lot # "Jun 15 2013"
100% Chicken Treat, lot # "Jul 8 2013"
100% Chicken Treat, lot # "Jul 11 2013"
100% Teriyaki Chicken Treats, lot # 132881
The latest FDA press release says no illnesses have been reported.
As with all raw foods, after handling jerky products, the company
recommends washing your hands thoroughly. Bailey's Choice is
working closely with the Georgia Department of Agriculture
inspectors who are in the process of checking retail stores and
warehouses to ensure the recalled products have been removed from
sale.
Anyone who bought the treats should immediately discard them.
Bailey's Choice Dog Treats LLC will provide a full refund and can
be reached at 770-881-0526, thomdo4570@gmail.com or online at
http://www.baileyschoicetreats.com
How salmonella poisoning affects pets and humans:
Salmonella can affect animals eating the products, and there is
risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially
if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having
contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.
Healthy people infected with salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.
Rarely, salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including
arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye
irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting
these signs after having contact with this product should contact
their healthcare providers.
Pets with salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.
If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these
symptoms, please contact your veterinarian immediately for further
advice.
BANFIELD PET: Faces Class Action Over "Optimum Wellness Plan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that a class
action lawsuit charges that the Banfield Pet Hospital finds ways
to upsell unnecessary services, wiping out the discounts it
offers under its "Optimum Wellness Plan," which covers more than
1 million pets nationwide.
Banfield outlets are located in PetSmart stores although Banfield
is owned mostly by candy giant Mars, which makes Pedigree and
Whiskas pet food as well as M&Ms, Skittles and other candies,
according to the suit.
"Banfield aggressively markets, advertises and sells the plans
that purport to offer deep savings and discounts for preventative
pet care services and related pet care products," lead plaintiff
Gregory Pero says in the lawsuit, Courthouse News Service
reported.
But Banfield "does not provide the promised savings and discounts
under its plan, and Banfield upsells unnecessary pet care to its
clients," Mr. Pero alleges.
Banfield charges a one-time membership fee of $49.95 in addition
to monthly payments that, for an adult dog, come to nearly $32 for
the cheapest plan. These costs supposedly entitle pet owners to
savings with each visit or monthly, but hide what Mr. Pero calls
"the warped service assumptions and inflated pricing scheme on
which the purported savings and discounts are based."
Some pet owners pay even more than that and say they still run up
huge bills when they take their pet to Banfield, as Suellen of
Everett, Mass., told ConsumerAffairs on Nov. 6.
"First of all, they are taking some serious money out of my
account. Even when I don't even take the dog to the vet they are
still taking $100 out of my account every month! A rip off!" she
said. "And when I take him to the vet they will still charge me
for their 'extras' that should be included in the plan!"
Not easy to quit
Like many others we've heard from, Suellen wants to get out of the
plan but says she faces a big penalty payment if she does.
"I don't recommend people to join this plan of theirs. And now
that I want to cancel this plan of theirs, they want to charge me
like $800.00!" she said.
Nick of Seneca, S.C., said his dog Lucky had to be euthanized in
September. He tried to call Banfield to cancel the wellness plan
but couldn't get through. He then filled out an online form but
couldn't submit because "apparently they did not like my answers,"
he told ConsumerAffairs.
"I finally got into queue and waited for over 30 minutes when my
phone went dead. I called again, waited and got to talk to a
person. I was very disappointed as to what I heard and it
essentially amounted to that the plan cannot be cancelled unless
it's paid off in full for the remaining 10 months or so," Nick
reported.
"When I dug up their enrollment documents from 2006, in the
"Additional Terms & Conditions" it reads, in a convoluted way,
that the plan renews automatically (no notification) and that it
is virtually impossible to cancel.
Since I may have to pay their fees for the next 10 months and in
case I forget, for even a longer period because of the automatic
renewal," he said.
"I find it despicable for Banfield to use such self-serving
language," Nick said.
Normally, we'd advise Nick and others in his situation to send in
his cancellation immediately and to be sure to send it via
certified mail or whatever method is specified in the contract.
But Katie of Lewisville, Texas, says she encountered a Catch-22
when trying to cancel her plan early.
Katie said she made it clear she didn't want her one-year plan to
renew because she planned to move at the end of the first year.
"Months later, I see that I'm still being charged by Banfield and
call to see if [my cat] is still enrolled. Which she was. After
making a one-hour call to the corporate headquarters, they finally
cancelled her plan and refunded me one month's payment. . . .
They claimed I requested that the plan not auto-renew EARLY, a
technicality."
Ready to do battle
Many consumers have had even worse experiences. Cynthia of
Colorado Springs, whose sergeant major husband is currently
deployed on his ninth combat mission, is ready to go to war with
Banfield.
"We purchased the 'Wellness Plan' because we love our schnauzer
just as if he were human. . . . When my father had a heart attack
and my husband was on his eighth combat tour, I had no choice but
to travel by car to see [my father] as I could not kennel my
"child."
Because she was in Texas visiting her father, she missed an
appointment for Padre, the schnauzer, to get a booster shot under
the wellness plan.
"When I contacted Banfield to notify that location that I would
not be available for Padre's booster shot, I was NEVER told that
if I missed that appointment I would have to PAY to start over on
that vaccination. Why would I when I am in their Wellness Plan
and pay EVERY month?"
Cynthia said that when she returned to Colorado Springs, a
Banfield employee told her: "We do not care if your father was in
ICU and almost died, that is not our problem! You HAVE to pay for
the entire shot process over again because YOU failed to comply
with our Optimum plan."
I was stunned and told her that I would not pay again as I have
been nothing but a loyal and respectful customer and then I said
this: "If you ever say anything so stupid to me or another client
again, not only will I attempt to have you removed from your job
but I will go on the news and tell them how Banfield treats their
military families."
Cynthia said her attempts to resign from the wellness plan and get
a refund for the $300 she has paid so far have been unsuccessful.
Colorado Springs may be turning into a hotbed of anti-Banfield
sentiment.
"I took my female dog to Banfield to get an exam and see if the
vet could palpate her abdomen to determine if she is pregnant,"
another Colorado Springs pet owner, also named Cynthia, said.
"The girl on the front desk told me they won't be able to do that
since only experienced vets have that knowledge and they don't
have any!"
Suit echoes complaints
Mr. Pero's suit echoes many of the complaints pet lovers have
submitted to ConsumerAffairs.
"Banfield promises that plan customers always get the services
they pay for, and Banfield advertises deep savings at every visit
and during each month the client owns a plan. In reality, the
savings begin to evaporate when the client does not need or cannot
use one or more of the bundled products or services under the
plan. Moreover, the advertised savings cannot be achieved each
visit or each month as Banfield effectively represents," the suit
alleges. "Rather, the client first would need to use an uncertain
number and variety of Banfield pet care products and services over
the course of an entire plan year. Meanwhile, Banfield overstates
its regular fees and tacks on miscellaneous fees and markups,
which misrepresents the ultimate savings and discounts earned by
clients."
Mr. Pero seeks class certification and damages unfair business
practices, consumer law violations, fraud and intentional
misrepresentation. He also wants Banfield barred from promoting
its wellness plans, restitution, and declaratory judgment that
customers may cancel their plans without penalty.
He is represented by Lee Gordon -- lee@hbsslaw.com -- with Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, in Pasadena.
BIOTAB NUTRACEUTICALS: FDA Warns on Counterfeit ExtenZe Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned
on Nov. 12 of a counterfeit dietary supplement for male sexual
enhancement that could be particularly harmful to patients with
diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and heart disease.
In a safety warning posted on its website, the FDA said the fake
product is represented as "ExtenZe Maximum Strength" and looks
similar to the actual product, ExtenZe, which is made by Monrovia,
California-based Biotab Nutraceuticals Inc.
The FDA said its analysis showed that the counterfeit ExtenZe
contains sildenafil, an active ingredient in various FDA-approved
prescription medicines, including Pfizer's Viagra, for erectile
dysfunction.
Biotab's ExtenZe does not contain sildenafil, which cannot be
taken without a prescription. The counterfeit product is
available online and elsewhere without a prescription.
Sildenafil may interact with nitrates -- found in some
prescription drugs and often taken by men with diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease -- and could
lower blood pressure to dangerous levels, the FDA said.
In February last year, Biotab started a voluntary recall of two
lots of ExtenZe products after being informed by the FDA that the
lots contained "undeclared drug ingredients" that could
potentially be dangerous.
The Canadian health regulator warned in June against various
unauthorized and "dangerous" ExtenZe products found at a retailer
in Calgary that could pose serious health risks.
The FDA said the fake product can be identified by lot number
0512058 and the expiration date, "EXP. May 16," stamped on the
outer carton and embossed on the blister card.
Customers with such counterfeit ExtenZe should stop taking the
supplement immediately and contact their healthcare professional,
the agency advised on on Nov. 12.
BLANDON ORNAMENTAL: Never Pays Extra Half Time for OT, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlon J. Castellanos and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Blandon Ornamental Iron, Inc. and Raul Blandon,
Case No. 1:13-cv-23687-UU (S.D. Fla., October 11, 2013) alleges
that the Plaintiff worked an average of 57 hours a week during the
Class Period for the Defendants and was paid an average of
$6.31 per hour but was never paid the extra half time rate for any
hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Blandon Ornamental Iron, Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County. Raul Blandon is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
BMO HARRIS: Allows Lenders to Credit Illegal Loans, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinta Elder, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.; First Premier Bank, a South
Dakota State-Chartered Bank; Missouri Bank and Trust, a Missouri
State-Chartered Bank; and Four Oaks Bank & Trust, a North Carolina
Chartered Bank, Case No. 8:13-cv-03043-JFM (D. Md., October 11,
2013) alleges that the Defendants allow out-of-state payday
lenders to access a processing system that is used by banks to
credit and debit consumer checking accounts in states where those
loans are illegal.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anna Claire Haac, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
2000 L St., NW, Suite 808
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
- and -
Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
CHITWOOD HARLEY HARMES LLP
1350 Broadway, Suite 908
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (917) 595-4600
Facsimile: (404) 876-4476
E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
200 SW First Ave., Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Steve Six, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road Ste 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: six@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 L St NW, Suite 808
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
BP PLC: Wants Appeals Court to Decertify Oil Spill Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that BP argued
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for the
second time this year asking that a settlement agreement reached
with the plaintiffs' steering committee last year not be upheld
unless procedures involving certain payments to businesses are
altered.
Earlier this year BP raised concerns over how the settlement
program was being handled by administrator Patrick Juneau. BP
told the court that some businesses were receiving claims payments
even though they could not show damages resulting from the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and still others were receiving
inflated payments provided through the Court Supervised Settlement
Program (CSSP).
Under the program BP has already paid out over $9 billion to
individual claimants -- while the company predicted it would be
liable for just over $7 billion when it entered into the
agreement.
BP's earlier appeal received a favorable opinion from the appeals
court which remanded a section of the case back to U.S. District
Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the overall BP trial of
which the second phase recently wrapped up.
Much of the hearing held on Nov. 4 was centered on the issue of
commonality in the class.
On behalf of BP, Washington, D.C-based attorney Ted Olson repeated
a previous appeals' argument, stating that when BP agreed to the
class action settlement the company believed it would be
interpreted differently by the court.
Appeals Court Judge Eugene Davis said it if all classes were
allowed to go back and change the terms of settlement then all
class action settlements would be endangered.
"If you only looked at the issues that existed after the
settlement you would never have a settlement because it would
undermine your class," Judge Davis said.
Judge Davis added that BP signed the settlement as it is currently
worded.
"As I understand it, at the baseline until those exhibits were
introduced this was a perfectly good settlement. There is no
standing problem," he said.
Mr. Olson countered saying that the interpretation of the
settlement was the real problem and was separate from BP's
original intent.
"We have supported the settlement and support the settlement
again," Mr. Olson said. "That is correct. Until the claims
administrator with the support of district court unmoored the
settlement process from the specific terms of the agreement by
reading causation and modification of actual loss out of the
settlement agreement. When that happened all of those things
disappeared."
Judge Emilio Garza questioned what the difference was between BP's
previous appeals hearing and the Nov. 4 proceeding and why BP did
not question the settlement in the months immediately after it was
enacted.
Mr. Olson answered that as soon as the problems began arising in
the settlement process, BP began to petition the court.
"BP objected to that process as soon as it became aware of facts
that showed that it was being distorted and that issue was being
considered by the other panel, and the other panel specifically
said that BP raised objections as soon as it could as soon as it
was aware of the problems," he said.
"So BP didn't sit by and watch something happen. In fact it did
object."
Samuel Issacharoff, a New York University School of Law professor,
served as counsel for the class action plaintiffs at the hearing.
"Every class member alleges that he/she /it was injured as a
result of the Deepwater Horizon spill that caused a decline in
their revenues, their incomes, during the resulting period and
that they want redress for their damages," he said.
Judge Garza asked Mr. Issacharoff to respond to the complaints
raised by BP.
"There has been numerous allegations from the objectors and even
BP that the interpretation of the agreement has somehow been
changed and that damages have somehow been substituted for
causation and that you have individuals who have suffered losses
but not from the spill and that some people have suffered losses
but have been given an excessive amount of damages,' he said,
Mr. Issacharoff said inclusion in a class is not dependent solely
on being able to prove damages.
"Proof of damages is not a perquisite to the certification of the
litigation class," he said.
In addition, Mr. Issacharoff was adamant that decertifying such a
class would set a precedent.
"I would submit that this is an extraordinary situation in which
this court has never, never overturned a settlement class in
conditions where the right to opt out was maintained and where
there were not personal injuries that would make everything so
wildly disparate so the indiviuals could not be effectively
corralled into one proceeding. Never," he said.
Judge Garza said he would agree, but for the issue of liability in
declines in revenue where there did not appear to be any
culpability on BP's behalf.
"That to me is a major problem," he said.
BOCA LAGO: Has Not Paid Overtime Wages to Employees, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grier Bibby v. Boca Lago Country Club, Inc., Case No. 9:13-cv-
81034-WJZ (S.D. Fla., October 11, 2013), alleges the Defendant
failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages calculated
at time and one-half of his regular hourly rate for all hours
worked over 40 hours in a given workweek.
Boca Lago Country Club, Inc., is a sui juris Florida not-for-
profit corporation that was authorized to conduct and actually
operated a golf course, pro shop, and related business in Boca
Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
9130 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 230-4884
Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com
- and -
Gregg S. Grossman, Esq.
GREGG S. GROSSMAN, P.A.
1646 S. Bayshore Dr
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 285-1075
E-mail: grossmanpa@bellsouth.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Erika R. Royal, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
515 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-1000
Facsimile: (954) 463-2030
E-mail: erika.royal@hklaw.com
BROOKS BROTHERS: Removes "Derby" Suit to Mass. District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brooks Brothers Group, Inc., removed the class action lawsuit
styled Derby v. Brooks Brothers Group, Inc., Case No. SUCV2013-
03007-BLSI, on October 11, 2013, from the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk, to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:13-cv-12551-RGS to the
proceeding.
In his class action lawsuit, Nicholas Derby seeks declaratory,
injunctive and monetary relief to remedy the Defendant's alleged
unlawful recording and use of its customers' personal
identification information when they make purchases using a credit
card in its stores.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
John J. Roddy, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
125 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-6730
Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com
jroddy@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
LEONARD LAW OFFICE, LLP
139 Charles St., Suite A121
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 595-3640
E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David G. Thomas, Esq.
James P. Ponsetto, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
One International Place, 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 310-6000
Facsimile: (617) 310-6001
E-mail: thomasda@gtlaw.com
ponsettoj@gtlaw.com
COMSCORE: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that
measurement company comScore is asking a federal judge in Illinois
to dismiss a class-action privacy lawsuit brought by panel members
who allege that the company didn't notify them about the extent of
its data collection.
comScore says in new papers that its user agreement with panelists
includes a "forum selection clause" that requires all disputes to
be litigated in Virginia. The two panelists who brought the case,
Jeff Dunstan of California and Illinois resident Mike Harris,
filed it in 2011 in federal court in the Northern District of
Illinois.
"The forum selection clause was presented to plaintiffs in all
capital letters in a clickwrap agreement," comScore says in its
latest attempt to convince U.S. District Court Judge James
Holderman to dismiss the lawsuit.
The company adds that the consumers theoretically can still
proceed with the case in Virginia -- although doing so potentially
would be inconvenient. "Any additional expense or inconvenience
that may be incurred by proceeding in Virginia was foreseeable at
the time that the parties agreed to the forum selection clause,"
comScore says.
comScore made a similar argument earlier in the case, but
Judge Holderman ruled against the company. The measurement firm
says in its new court papers that additional facts have emerged
showing that "all members of the class did in fact agree to the
contract."
The panelists' lawyer, Jay Edelson, calls comScore's latest move a
"Hail Mary pass."
"They summarily rejected their arguments when they raised them two
years ago and we don't foresee a different result this time," he
says.
Earlier this year, Judge Holderman issued a key ruling against
comScore, when he allowed the case to proceed as a class-action
and certified a class of everyone since 2005 who downloaded
comScore's software from a third party. Judge Holderman also
certified a smaller subgroup of people who weren't shown a
hyperlink to comScore's end-user license agreement before
downloading the software.
Dunstan and Harris alleged in their complaint that they installed
comScore's software after downloading a free product -- like a
screensaver, game or program that creates greeting cards. They say
that comScore's terms of service don't alert users about the
"terrifying" amount of data the company collects -- including
usernames and passwords, search queries, credit card numbers and
retail transactions.
They also contend that comScore's marketing partners -- who bundle
comScore software with freeware -- often don't disclose
information about comScore until after users have started
downloading the free programs. Dunstan and Harris argue that
comScore violated various federal privacy laws by capturing
information from people's computers without their informed
consent.
comScore unsuccessfully argued that the case didn't lend itself to
class-action certification because questions about consent require
case-by-case analysis. But Judge Holderman ruled that the lawsuit
presented many common questions, including whether the comScore's
data collection practices went beyond what the company said in its
terms of service.
The company attempted to appeal Judge Holderman's ruling to the
7th Circuit Court of Appeals, but that court refused to hear the
case.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Students to Face Arbitration, 9th Cir. Ruled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that an
arbitrator must resolve unfair competition and false advertising
claims against the for-profit education company Corinthian
Colleges, the 9th Circuit ruled October 28, 2013.
The federal appeals court in Pasadena found that a California rule
that had exempted such claims for "public injunctive relief" from
arbitration is no longer valid in light of recent Supreme Court
rulings.
In two proposed class actions consolidated in Santa Ana, lead
plaintiffs Kevin Ferguson and Sandra Muniz alleged that
Corinthian, which operates for-profit colleges throughout the
country under the names Everest Institute and Heald College,
misled students as to the quality of its education, its schools'
accreditation, and students' job prospects after graduation, among
other things. They also claimed that Corinthian misled students
into applying for federal financial aid, and that it specifically
targeted veterans. The consolidated federal action proposed a
class that included all students who enrolled in an Everest school
after approximately January 24, 2005, or a Heald school after
approximately January 24, 2009.
Corinthian moved to compel arbitration on all seven of the
plaintiffs' claims, citing an arbitration clause in its enrollment
agreements.
U.S. District Judge David Carter agreed as to most of the claims,
but denied to compel arbitration for the plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief under California's unfair competition law, false
advertising law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
In doing so, Judge Carter referred to the California Supreme
Court's so-called Broughton-Cruz rule, which had for years
exempted from arbitration claims "for the benefit of the general
public rather than the party bringing the action," based on a
perceived conflict between arbitration and the state's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.
Noting the U.S. Supreme Court's recent expansive reading of the
Federal Arbitration Act, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit
reversed on Monday, October 28, 2013.
"Just a few months ago, the Supreme Court reiterated that 'courts
must 'rigorously enforce' arbitration agreements according to
their terms," Judge Richard Clifton Wrote for the panel.
That and other recent rulings "strongly suggests even where a
specific remedy has implications for the public at large, it must
be arbitrated under the FAA if the parties have agreed to
arbitrate it," he added.
The panel reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case,
ordering a stay of the lawsuit pending arbitration of all the
plaintiffs' claims.
The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:
Peter W. Homer, Esq.
Christopher King, Esq.
HOMERBONNER P.A.
1200 Four Seasons Tower
1441 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 350-5100
Facsimile: (305) 372-2738
E-mail: phomer@homerbonner.com
cking@homerbonner.com
- and -
Paul D. Fogel, Esq.
Felicia Yu, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 543-8700
Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
E-mail: pfogel@reedsmith.com
- and -
Kevin P. Jacobs, Esq.
HERRON, JACOBS, & ORTIZ
1401 Brickell Av., Suite 825
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 779-8100
The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
CHAPIN FITZGERALD SULLIVAN & BOTTINI LLP
550 West C Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 241-4810
Facsimile: (619) 955-5318
The Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States is
represented by:
Kate Comerford Todd, Esq.
Tyler R. Green, Esq.
NATIONAL CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, INC.
1615 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20062
Telephone: (202) 463-5337
Facsimile: (202) 463-5346
- and -
Andrew J. Pincus, Esq.
Evan M. Tager, Esq.
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
Richard B. Katskee, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1101
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
E-mail: apincus@mayerbrown.com
etager@mayerbrown.com
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
rkatskee@mayerbrown.com
The appellate case is Ferguson, et al. v. Corinthian Colleges,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-56965, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks to Appeal "Adair" Suit Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
EQT Production Company is awaiting a court decision on its
petition for permission to appeal an order certifying a class in
the purported class action lawsuit filed by Robert Adair, et al.
The case asserts claims against EQT related to its production of
coalbed methane natural gas ("CBM") from the Plaintiffs' property.
Mr. Adair's interest in CBM was forced-pooled under the Virginia
Gas and Oil Act and as a so-called "deemed lessor." He seeks
damages for allegedly excessive deductions from royalties paid
into escrow.
EQT Production Company is a multi-state oil and gas producer.
The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:
Mark Edward Frye, Esq.
PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE
804 Anderson Street
Bristol, TN 37620-2009
Telephone: (276) 466-4800
E-mail: mfrye@pennstuart.com
- and -
Stephen McQuiston Hodges, Esq.
Wade Wallihan Massie, Esq.
PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE
208 East Main Street
P. O. Box 2288
Abingdon, VA 24212-2288
E-mail: shodges@pennstuart.com
wmassie@pennstuart.com
- and -
Rowland Braxton Hill, IV, Esq.
Michael Willis Smith, Esq.
CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP
1200 Mutual Building
909 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219-3095
Telephone: (804) 697-4108
E-mail: bhill@cblaw.com
msmith@cblaw.com
The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
150 Fourth Avenue North
One Nashville Place
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: ealexander@lchb.com
- and -
Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
Jennifer Gross, Esq.
Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
David S. Stellings, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
250 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com
jgross@lchb.com
dseltz@lchb.com
dstellings@lchb.com
- and -
Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
6518 Highway 100
Nashville, TN 37205
Telephone: (615) 515-3393
E-mail: info@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Don Barrett, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P. O. Box 987
Lexington, MS 39095-0000
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
E-mail: info@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
Post Office Box 339
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-4960
- and -
Peter G. Glubiak, Esq.
GLUBIAK LAW OFFICE
11165 West River Road
P. O. Box 144
Aylett, VA 23009-0000
Telephone: (804) 769-1616
- and -
Brian Herrington, Esq.
HERRINGTON LAW PA
404 Court Square North
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (601) 376-9331
- and -
David Malcom McMullan, Jr., Esq.
DON BARRETT PA
404 Court Square North
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
- and -
Larry D. Moffett, Esq.
DANIEL COKER HORTON AND BELL, PA
265 North Lamar Boulevard
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: (662) 232-8979
E-mail: lmoffett@danielcoker.com
- and -
Sara Katherine Riley, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
404 Court Square North
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
- and -
Jennifer Lindsey Shaver, Esq.
Post Office Box 2032
Abingdon, VA 24212
Telephone: (276) 525-1103
The appellate case is EQT Production Company v. Robert Adair, Case
No. 13-00414, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. The original case is case is Robert Adair, et al. v. EQT
Production Company, Case No. 1:10-cv-00037-JPJ-PMS, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Virginia at
Abingdon.
GATSBY ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages and Back Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lysa Glunt, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons v. Gatsby Entertainment, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Rob
Mersis and Dan Cook Case No. 1:13-cv-02773-CMA-MJW (D. Colo.,
October 11, 2013) seeks to recover damages and backpay to
compensate all current and former employees of the Defendants.
Gatsby Entertainment, Inc. is a Colorado corporation, which owns
and operates Gatsby's, a restaurant and bar located in Denver,
Colorado. Rob Mersis and Dan Cook own and operate Gatsby.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Telephone: (970) 212-4665
Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoTrialLaw.com
GOLD COAST: Did Not Pay All of Employees' OT Hours, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monica L. Anthony v. Gold Coast Medical Centers, Inc. d/b/a Urgi-
Med, and Munira M. Koita, Individually, Case No. 9:13-cv-81035-JIC
(S.D. Fla., October 11, 2013) is brought to recover from the
Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other current and former employees similarly situated
during the material time. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants did not compensate her and those similarly situated
employees, for all overtime hours worked in a work week.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 305
North Miami, FL 33181
Telephone: (305) 726-0060
Facsimile: (305) 726-0046
E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com
INT'L FOLLIES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Bromirski on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. International Follies, Inc. d/b/a The Cheetah and
William Hagood, Case No. 1:13-cv-03379-JEC (N.D. Ga., October 11,
2013) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated the minimum wage and substantial
overtime for hours worked.
The Defendants operate a strip club in Fulton County commonly
known as the "Cheetah." International Follies, Inc. is a Georgia
for profit corporation headquartered in Atlanta. International
Follies is the legal owner of the Cheetah club. William Hagood is
a natural person that exercises complete control over all the
operations and procedures at the establishment known as the
Cheetah.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harlan S. Miller, III, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 14th Street, 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
E-mail: hmiller@pcwlawfirm.com
- and -
Stephen L. Minsk, Esq.
1451 Biltmore Drive N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30329
Telephone: (770) 861-7201
E-mail: stephenminsk@minsklaw.com
JACK IN THE BOX: Fails to Pay Workers' Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fermina C. Olvera accuses Jack in The Box Inc. of not paying its
workers' overtime compensation.
The case is Fermina C. Olvera v. Jack in the Box Inc., Case No.
37-2013-00072707-CU-OE-CTL, in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: To Settle DePuy Hip Implant Suits for $4BB
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and David Voreacos, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that Johnson & Johnson will pay more than $4 billion to resolve
thousands of lawsuits over its recalled hip implants in the
largest settlement of U.S. legal claims for a medical device,
three people familiar with the deal said.
The accord will resolve more than 7,500 lawsuits in federal and
state courts against J&J's DePuy unit, said the people, who
requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak
publicly about the settlement. Patients who have had hips
replaced claimed in the cases that the implants were defective.
The company will pay an average of $300,000 or more for each of
those surgeries, the people said. The agreement doesn't bar
patients whose artificial hips fail in the future from seeking
compensation from J&J, they said. That means the settlement is
uncapped in terms of its total value, according to the people.
The settlement is expected to be announced next week in federal
court in Toledo, Ohio.
The agreement "resolves a lot of litigation that could have
dragged on for years and cost J&J much more money in the long
run," said Carl Tobias, who teaches product-liability law at the
University of Richmond in Virginia.
The settlement will be the second multibillion-dollar agreement
this month for J&J, the world's largest seller of health-care
products. J&J, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, said Nov. 4
that it will pay $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil probes
into the marketing of Risperdal and other medicines.
Recall Costs
Mindy Tinsley, a spokeswoman for DePuy, declined on Nov. 13 to
comment on the accord. J&J has spent about $993 million on
medical costs and informing patients and surgeons about the
recall, Lorie Gawreluk, another DePuy spokeswoman, said earlier
this year. J&J set aside an undisclosed amount for litigation,
which it increased before June 30, she said.
J&J's 5.15 percent notes due in 2018 fell 1 percent to 114.824
cents on the dollar, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting
system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The 6.95
percent notes due in 2029 dropped 2.8 percent to 130 cents on the
dollar, according to Trace.
94 Percent
Under the accord, 94 percent of eligible claimants must sign up
for the settlement or the company can withdraw from the deal,
according to the people.
"It's certainly a lot of money, but there are whole bunch of
people who contend these hips caused grievous injuries,"
Mr. Tobias said. "So some of them may feel like this isn't enough
compensation for what they've gone through."
The company recalled 93,000 ASR hip implants worldwide in August
2010, saying 12 percent failed within five years. Internal J&J
documents show 37 percent of ASR hips failed after 4.6 years.
Last year, the failure rate in Australia climbed to 44 percent
within seven years.
J&J had touted the metal-on-metal implants, first sold in the U.S.
in 2005, as a new design that would last 20 years and offer
greater range of motion. As failures mounted, patients complained
in lawsuits that the metal-on-metal implant caused dislocations,
pain and follow-up surgeries known as revisions. They claimed
that debris from the chromium and cobalt device caused tissue
death and increased metal ions in the bloodstream.
Federal Suits
The company is facing about 12,000 suits filed in federal and
state courts in Ohio, California and New Jersey. U.S. District
Judge David Katz in Toledo is coordinating federal litigation and
the settlement will need his approval.
Claims in the remaining cases, filed by patients who fear they
will need revisions in the future, would be handled in a second
round of settlements, the people said.
The $4 billion settlement will provide compensation to hip
patients based on factors including age, extent of injuries and
whether they had one or more surgeries to replace defective
implants, according to the people.
The accord also provides more compensation to hip recipients who
suffered "extreme injuries" from the device's failure, or endured
long hospital stays after removal surgeries.
J&J also has agreed to set aside funds to reimburse Medicare and
other insurers for claims paid on behalf of hip-implant patients,
which could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the value of
the settlement, the people said.
Mark Robinson, a member of a group of plaintiffs' lawyers who are
overseeing the progress of the hip cases consolidated before Katz,
declined to comment on the settlement.
Sulzer Settlement
The J&J hip settlement dwarfs a 2001 accord Sulzer (SUN) AG
reached with patients who claimed that company's hip and knee
implants were defective. Sulzer, based in Winterthur,
Switzerland, agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve those suits.
J&J lost one trial over the ASR hips, won a second, and had
scheduled seven more.
In the first trial, a California state court jury awarded $8.3
million in compensatory damages in March to a retired Montana
prison guard. The panel ruled that the device was defectively
designed and DePuy was negligent. It also held that DePuy
properly warned of the risks and that the company didn't owe
punitive damages. DePuy said it would appeal.
Lawyers for plaintiff Loren Kransky argued DePuy failed to test
the device adequately before selling it in the U.S., buried
surgeon complaints of mounting failures, and studied a redesign of
the ASR before scrapping that effort in 2008.
Chicago Jury
On April 17, a state court jury in Chicago sided with DePuy,
rejecting a defective-design claim by an Illinois nurse.
The J&J hips came in two related models -- the ASR XL Acetabular
System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System. In announcing its
recall, J&J cited unpublished data from the U.K. showing that
within five years, 13 percent of ASR XL hips failed and needed
revisions, and 12 percent of the ASR Hip Resurfacing System
failed.
The first federal trial was set for Cleveland in September. J&J
settled that case and another set for trial in state court in
California in October for undisclosed amounts, the people said.
The consolidated federal case is In re DePuy Orthopedics Inc., ASR
Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 10-MD-2197, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Toledo).
LES SCHWAB: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in W.D. Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national law firm dedicated to
representing plaintiffs' rights on Nov. 7 filed a class-action
lawsuit on Nov. 6 alleging that tire retail chain Les Schwab Tire
Centers intentionally misclassified a large segment of its
workforce in an attempt to avoid paying hundreds of employees
overtime pay in violation of Washington State wage and hour laws.
The proposed class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington alleges that Les Schwab
compelled workers titled as assistant managers to work extra hours
without overtime pay, including twelve-hour workdays and six-day
workweeks.
The complaint alleges that the duties given to Les Schwab
assistant managers do not adhere to the rules for state exemptions
to wage and hour laws.
"The trick of trying to apply a managerial-sounding title to a
worker in an attempt to avoid overtime pay is just about as old as
the wheel itself," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens
Berman and the lead attorney on the case. "In this case, it is
abundantly clear to us that Les Schwab exploited these workers for
years, letting them chase a largely unobtainable brass ring."
According to published reports, workers classified as assistant
managers compete against one another for the opportunity to become
store managers, an extraordinarily lucrative position often paying
in six figures. The company amended its policy and now treats
assistant mangers as hourly employees, the complaint notes.
"The fact that Les Schwab changed the way it classifies employees
and now pays them overtime says a great deal about the practice,
but does not absolve them of their responsibility to set things
right," Mr. Berman noted.
The suit was filed on behalf of all individuals who were employed
by Les Schwab in Washington as assistant managers from Nov. 6,
2010 to the present, were misclassified as exempt employees, and
were not paid appropriate overtime wages as required by law.
Washington State's wage and hour laws enforce fair compensation
for work performed, including overtime at the statutory rate for
employees who work more than 40 hours a week.
The state has created limited exceptions to this rule for "any
individual employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or
professional capacity," but the case alleges that Les Schwab's
"assistant manager" title is a "misnomer," keeping employees from
making wages they deserve for the work they perform.
The complaint plaintiff, Richard O'Hearn, alleges that Les Schwab
has misclassified assistant managers systematically, and that
based on the work performed and time devoted in this position, Les
Schwab knowingly let this practice continue.
Les Schwab owns and operates more than 600 retail tire stores
across the western United States, and according to the complaint,
all locations follow a similar employment and position hierarchy.
The complaint alleges that in each of its Washington stores,
Les Schwab employed at least one person who is designated an
assistant manager, which were required to conform to Les Schwab's
company-wide standards, including hours worked and the tasks
performed.
"The assistant managers' primary duties did not constitute the
management of the Les Schwab business or require the exercise of
discretionary powers," according to the lawsuit. The case alleges
that Assistant Managers were tasked with routine maintenance work
such as "cleaning up the backroom or stockroom, changing light
bulbs, sweeping the parking lot, dumping scrap heaps of metal,
garbage, or cardboard." The case alleges that actual managerial
work performed by Assistant Managers was "minimal."
According to the case, Mr. O'Hearn, assistant manager at the
Bothell Les Schwab Tire Center, describes his responsibilities in
similar terms, working more than 40 hours a week, arriving at the
location before store hours, and performing non-managerial duties
alongside hourly employees.
On Jan. 1, 2013, Les Schwab suspended its policy of classifying
its Assistant Managers as exempt, but did not pay Plaintiff
O'Hearn, or any of its Washington assistant managers, the earned
overtime they had allegedly accrued prior to the suspension of the
policy.
Les Schwab employees who believe they were misclassified as exempt
by the company can contact Hagens Berman for more information by
calling (206) 623-7292 or by emailing LesSchwab@hbsslaw.com
More information about this case can be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/cases/LesSchwab
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is an
employee-rights class-action law firm with offices nine cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List seven times.
MF GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consolidated Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Arton Sina, Todd Thielmann, Natalia Sivova, Pierre-Yvan
Desparois and Sandy Glover-Bowlers appealed on October 11, 2013,
from an order dated August 23, 2013, dismissing with prejudice
their second amended class action adversary proceeding complaint.
The consolidated adversary complaint seeks relief under state acts
and federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and
was filed on behalf of employees terminated by the Defendants.
The appellate case is In Re: MF Global Holdings Ltd., Case No.
1:13-cv-07218-LGS (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2013).
The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene Sara Roupinian, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN,LLP (NYC)
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
rroupinian@outtengolden.com
The Appellees-Defendants are represented by:
James D. Vandewyngearde, Esq.
Robert Steven Hertzberg, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
4000 Town Center, Suite 1800
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 359-7387
Facsimile: (248) 359-7700
E-mail: vandewyj@pepperlaw.com
hertzbergr@pepperlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Certifies Name & Likeness Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
has certified a class action that challenges the National
Collegiate Athletic Association's long-standing rules requiring
student-athletes to sign away rights to their names and likenesses
as the organization strikes deals of its own.
Although she declined to certify a subclass of athletes seeking to
recover monetary damages, U.S. District Chief Judge Claudia Wilken
will let plaintiffs try to upend NCAA policies that bar them from
striking group deals to license their names and likenesses for use
in video games and television broadcasts. In the order certifying
the injunctive relief class, released on Nov. 8, she said it would
be too hard for plaintiffs to determine who had actually been
harmed for a damages class.
Represented by Munger Tolles & Olson and Schiff Hardin, the NCAA
insisted that the injunctive relief class must also be rejected.
The bid for an injunction appeared to have been tacked on to the
demand for damages, which was the plaintiffs' main aim, the NCAA
argued. But Judge Wilken saw value in the proposed injunction,
too.
"Without the requested injunctive relief, all class members --
including both current and former student-athletes -- would
potentially be subject to ongoing antitrust harms resulting from
the continued unauthorized use of their names, images and
likenesses," she wrote.
The NCAA cheered Judge Wilken's rejection of the plaintiffs' bid
for damages.
"We have long maintained that the plaintiffs in this matter are
wrong on the facts and wrong on the law," Donald Remy, the NCAA's
chief legal officer, said in a statement. "This ruling is one
step closer to validating that position."
Judge Wilken certified lawyers at Hausfeld as class counsel for
the plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief. Lawyers at Hausfeld did
not respond to requests for comment.
Twenty-five current and former college athletes, who played on
Division I men's football and basketball teams between 1953 and
the present, allege that the NCAA has violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act by stamping out competition in the licensing market
in In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing
Litigation, 09-1967. The NCAA has struck deals for use of
players' names and likenesses with various companies, including
Electronic Arts for its video game "NCAA Football."
Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company reached a $40
million settlement with the plaintiffs in September, but the NCAA
decided to keep fighting. The organization argued in court papers
that the plaintiffs were not eligible for class certification
because some college athletes could command a higher price for
their names and likenesses than others. But Judge Wilken brushed
aside those concerns, noting that the plaintiffs accused the NCAA
of stifling competition in the market for group licensing rights.
"Even if some class members suffered greater economic losses than
others because the NCAA prevented them from licensing their
individual publicity rights, those rights would have no bearing on
this case," Judge Wilken wrote.
But Judge Wilken had other concerns about the would-be damages
class. An expert for the plaintiffs argues that more college
athletes might stay in school if they could recoup money in the
group licensing market.
But Judge Wilken noted in her order that students who leave early
to play professionally open up spots for others, meaning that some
members of the would-be class for damages actually benefited from
the competitive constraints imposed by the NCAA. The plaintiffs
failed to propose a remedy to address this "substitution effect,"
Judge Wilken wrote.
In addition, determining which sliver of the class had appeared in
video games and on television broadcasts would be a mammoth task,
she noted.
"This makes it impossible to determine who is a member of the
damages subclass without conducting thousands of individualized
comparisons between real-life college football players and their
potential videogame counterparts," Judge Wilken wrote.
NEW YORK, NY: Failed to Pay $100K Settlement, Hot Dog Vendors Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that nearly 200
hot dog vendors claim New York City failed to pay a $100,000
settlement of a 2007 lawsuit over bogus fines.
Mohammed Ali filed the class action New York Supreme Court on
behalf of 188 hot dog vendors.
New York City began ticketing vendors in 2006 after it decided --
without legislation -- that the configurations of the vending
carts were illegal, according to the original lawsuit in 2007.
The new complaint claims the parties agreed to a settlement on
November 23, 2011, which included a $100,000 payment to the
vendors, and dismissal of all outstanding tickets in exchange for
dismissal of the case.
But Ali claims: "In hindsight, it appears that even before the ink
had dried on its letter to Justice [George J.] Silver informing
him of the settlement agreement, the City was plotting to
renegotiate the express terms to which it had agreed.
"Despite the unequivocal nature of the settlement agreement, the
City took more than two months to prepare an initial draft of the
stipulation of settlement. In that draft, which counsel for the
vendor class received February 1, 2012, the City for the first
time indicated that it wanted to impose restrictions on the amount
of the total settlement any particular class member could receive
and sought return of a portion of the settlement payment if any of
the class members could not be located, among other previously
undisclosed material terms."
The vendors balked at the changes and tried to hold the City to
the original settlement, but Ali claims the money has not been
paid and none of the outstanding tickets have been dismissed.
He wants the city ordered to abide by the settlement, pay the
$100,000 and dismiss the tickets.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Kohn, Esq.
SCHULTE, ROTH & ZABEL LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 756-2339
E-mail: brian.kohn@srz.com
NIPPON YUSEN: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Vehicle Carrier Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cargo Agents, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, NYK Line (North
America), Inc., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Bulk
Shipping (USA), Inc., Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., "K" Line
America, Inc., Eukor Car Carriers Inc., Wallenius Wilhelmsen
Logistics ASA, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics Americas LLC,
Wallenius Lines AB, Wilh. Wilhemsen Holding ASA, Wilh. Wilhemsen
ASA, Compania Sud Americana De Vapores S.A., CSAV Agency North
America, LLC, Toyofuji Shipping Co., Ltd., and Nissan Motor Car
Carrier Co., Ltd., Case No. 1:13-cv-07216-PKC (S.D.N.Y.,
October 11, 2013) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a
combination and conspiracy to restrain trade, which had the effect
of fixing, raising or stabilizing the price paid by the Plaintiff
and the Class for Vehicle Carrier Service in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.
The Defendants are major providers of Vehicle Carrier Service
globally to and from the United States of America. Vehicle
Carriers are large specialized ocean shipping vessels that
transport wheeled freight, like cars, trucks, buses and others,
and can be rolled on and off of a ship.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Richard Jo Kilsheimer, Esq.
Gregory Keith Arenson, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
garenson@kaplanfox.com
OASIS GOODTIME: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Bromirski on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Oasis Goodtime Emporium I, Inc. & Barbara Holcomb,
Case No. 1:13-cv-03380-JEC (N.D. Ga., October 11, 2013) asserts
that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated the minimum wage and substantial overtime for
hours worked.
Oasis Goodtime Emporium I, Inc., doing business as "Oasis," is a
Georgia for profit corporation headquartered in Atlanta. Barbara
Holcomb is a natural person that exercises complete control over
all the operations and procedures at the establishment known as
the Oasis located in Atlanta. The Defendants operate a strip club
in Dekalb County commonly known as the "Oasis."
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harlan Stuart Miller, III, Esq.
PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 Fourteenth Street, N.E., 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
Facsimile: (404) 873-8015
E-mail: hmiller@pcwlawfirm.com
- and -
Stephen L. Minsk, Esq.
MINSK & ASSOCIATES, LLC
1451 Biltmore Drive, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30329
Telephone: (770) 861-7201
E-mail: stephen_minsk@yahoo.com
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Nov. 5 disclosed
that an investor of Pretium Resources, Inc. has filed a federal
securities fraud class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that
the company and certain of its officers violated the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 between January 19, 2011 and October 21,
2013.
Pretium Accused of Misleading Investors Regarding the Quality and
Quantity of Its Gold Reserves
Shares of Pretium fell $2.07 per share, or approximately 30%, on
October 9, 2013, after the company disclosed that Strathcona
Mineral Services Ltd., one of the two firms the company had hired
to evaluate the quality of its gold reserves at its Brucejack
site, had resigned from the project. On October 22, 2013, Pretium
further revealed that Strathcona had resigned from the project
after concluding that no valid gold resources existed while also
noting that all mineral reserves and future gold production from
the VOK Zone of the Brucejack project were erroneous and
misleading. On this news, Pretium shares fell an additional 28%,
to close at $3.36 per share on October 22, 2013, representing a
total 58% decline since October 9, 2013.
According to the complaint, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Pretium had
not acquired credible evidence demonstrating the quantity and
quality of gold reserve estimates it claimed during the Class
Period; (ii) Snowden Group, one of the companies hired to provide
analysis of the quantity and quality of the gold at the Brucejack
project, was not using reliable methodology to evaluate the gold
reserve estimates; (iii) Snowden and Strathcona did not agree on
the methodology used to evaluate the gold reserve estimates and;
(iv) the 2012 Mineral Resources prepared by Snowden did not
accurately classify the mineral resources present as Measured,
Indicated, and Inferred Resources.
Pretium Shareholders Are Encouraged To Contact Shareholder Rights
Law Firm Robbins Arroyo
If you invested in Pretium and would like to discuss your
shareholder rights, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at
(800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the information
form on the firm's shareholder rights blog at http://is.gd/OHV5qB
Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in securities
litigation and shareholder rights law. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients
realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the
companies in which they have invested.
RALPHS GROCERY: 9th Cir. Affirmed Denial of Bid for Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that former Ralphs
Grocery employees need not arbitrate their claims against the
company, at a cost of up to $7,000 per day and per person, even
though they agreed to do so in applying for work, the 9th Circuit
ruled Monday, October 28, 2013.
Zenia Chavarria, a former deli clerk at a Ralphs in California,
filed a proposed class action against the company in 2011,
alleging that it had failed to pay for meal breaks and overtime,
and had forced her and others to work off the clock, among other
things, in violation of the California Labor Code.
U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson in Los Angeles refused to
compel arbitration because he found the company's arbitration
policy "unconscionable."
A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Pasadena
affirmed on Monday, October 28, 2013.
The unanimous panel noted that the agreement was unconscionable in
a number of ways, including that Chavarria was forced to sign it
as part of her application process.
"Ralphs did not provide Chavarria the terms of the arbitration
policy until her employment orientation, three weeks after the
policy came into effect regarding any dispute related to her
employment," Judge Richard Clifton wrote for the panel. "The
employment application merely contains a one-paragraph 'notice' of
the policy. The policy itself is a four-page, single-spaced
document with several complex terms."
Moreover, the arbitration policy as it stands requires that the
arbiter's costs be "apportioned at the outset of the arbitration
and must be split evenly between Ralph's and the employee."
"The significance of this obstacle becomes more apparent through
Ralphs' representation to the district court that the fees for a
qualified arbitrator under its policy would range from $7,000 to
$14,000 per day," Clifton wrote. "Ralphs' policy requires that an
employee pay half of that amount -- $3,500 to $7,000 -- for each
day of the arbitration just to pay for her share of the
arbitrator's fee. This cost likely dwarfs the amount of
Chavarria's claims."
The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:
Steven B. Katz, Esq.
Linda S. Husar, Esq.
Mara Matheke, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Ave., Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 457-8000
Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
E-mail: skatz@reedsmith.com
lhusar@reedsmith.com
mmatheke@reedsmith.com
The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:
Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW, APC
1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com
- and -
Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
Neda Roshanian, Esq.
Michael D. Coats, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
1875 Century Park East Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 286-0246
Facsimile: (310) 407-5391
E-mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com
The appellate case is Zenia Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Company,
Case No. 11-56673, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The original case is Zenia Chavarria v. Ralphs
Grocery Company, Case No. 2:11-cv-02109-DDP-VBK, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
RANCH MASONRY: Does Not Pay Hourly Employees' OT Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerson Hernandez, Marvin Lopez, Oscar Castillo, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Ranch Masonry, Inc.
and Arturo Garcilazo, Case No. 4:13-cv-03016 (S.D. Tex.,
October 11, 2013) alleges that the Defendants do not pay their
hourly employees' overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Defendants are in the commercial construction business. They
install brick and stone for schools, apartments and other
businesses. Ranch Masonry's principal office is in Houston,
Texas. Mr. Garcilazo owns and operates Ranch Masonry.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
RESTAURANT.COM: 3rd Cir. Allows Coupon Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
one-year limits on redeeming gift certificates from dining-deal
site Restaurant.com may violate a New Jersey consumer-protection
law, says a putative class-action suit given a green light by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The judges based their ruling in Shelton v. Restaurant.com on an
advisory opinion by the New Jersey Supreme Court that such
certificates fall within the province of the Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.
Lead plaintiffs Larissa Shelton and Gregory Bohus claim that the
website, by stating the certificates are good for only a year,
violates the law, which requires that gift certificates and gift
cards be redeemable for two years.
"We will move forward with discovery and litigation," says the
plaintiffs' lead attorney, Andrew Wolf, who is hoping that the
case will become a class action. "We believe this ruling is
sufficient to get the class certified," he says.
Because the case originally had been dismissed on summary
judgment, the potential size of the class is not known, says,
Mr. Wolf, of the Wolf Law Firm in New Brunswick. "We believe that
each member of the class could be awarded as much as $100 per
coupon," he says. "That will be a significant amount."
Customers purchase and print certificates redeemable at specific
restaurants from Restaurant.com's website for a discounted price.
Participating restaurants may impose certain conditions, such as
barring the use of a certificate on weekends or for the purchase
of alcoholic beverages. Each gift certificate details its value,
the restaurant where the certificate is redeemable, any
limitations imposed by the restaurant and standard terms imposed
by Restaurant.com.
Ms. Shelton and Mr. Bohus first sued in Middlesex County Superior
Court seeking penalties under the New Jersey Gift Certificate Act,
the Consumer Fraud Act and the TCCWNA. After the case was removed
to federal court on diversity grounds, U.S. District Judge Joel
Pisano dismissed it, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to
allege an ascertainable loss, one of the three necessary elements
for a claim under the CFA. Further, he found the plaintiffs were
not "consumers" as defined by the TCCWNA, since the gift
certificates were not "property."
The Third Circuit heard arguments last year but deferred a ruling
after asking the New Jersey court for guidance under N.J. Court
Rule 2:12A-1.
The Supreme Court held in July that the TCCWNA covers the sale of
tangible and intangible property and that certificates issued by
participating restaurants and offered for purchase by sites like
Restaurant.com are intangible property primarily for personal,
family, or household use, thereby qualifying plaintiffs as
consumers.
"Plaintiffs and other purchasers paid money to Restaurant.com,
which in turn issued a certificate for use at a participating
restaurant. Upon presentation, the purchaser receives goods,
namely food and drinks, at a discounted price," Judge Mary Cuff
wrote for the court.
She added that online transactions are covered by the 2001 Uniform
Electronic Transaction Act. "The transaction has all the basic
features of a contract: offer, acceptance, consideration, and
performance by both parties," she said.
Cuff said the TCCWNA, enacted in 1982, was part of an area of law
that was being "treated aggressively" by the Legislature. She
noted Gov. Brendan Byrne's signing statement that the TCCWNA was
meant to "strengthen the provisions" of the CFA.
"In other words, the proposed legislation did not recognize any
new consumer rights but merely imposed an obligation on sellers to
acknowledge clearly established consumer rights and provided
remedies for posting or inserting provisions contrary to law," she
said.
The TCCWNA's legislative history also shows it was not intended to
mirror the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission
Improvement Act, which applies only to tangible property, Cuff
said.
In its Nov. 4 ruling, the Third Circuit agreed. Federal courts
"are required to apply state substantive law to diversity
actions," U.S. Circuit Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr. wrote, citing
the seminal case of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
Restaurant.com's lawyer, Michael McDonald --
mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- of Gibbons in Newark, did not return a
telephone call seeking comment.
RITE AID: Seeks Dismissal of Record Retrieval Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin and Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that
Rite Aid argued on Nov. 6 that pharmacies are not subject to
Pennsylvania's Medical Records Act and its restriction on what
they can charge for pharmacy records, asking the state's Supreme
Court to dismiss a putative class action over its flat record
retrieval fees.
Rite Aid challenged an appeals court ruling that the MRA did apply
to pharmacies and mandated Rite Aid charge a per-page fee instead
of its $50 charge for providing records. But Rite Aid argued the
MRA was designed to streamline procedures for obtaining hospital
records needed for litigation, and was never intended to apply to
pharmacies.
"In the three decades it has been on the books, the MRA has never
been held to apply to records providers other than hospitals,
other health care facilities and the doctors who work at them,"
the brief said.
The 2010 suit against Rite Aid alleges that the company violated
Pennsylvania's MRA by not basing its charges for records on actual
expenses incurred in reproducing and providing them, instead
charging $50 for as little as one page.
An appeals court ruled against Rite Aid in 2012, holding that
pharmacists were not just intermediaries between doctors and
patients but are health care providers under the statute.
But Rite Aid argued on Nov. 6 that the MRA specifically
distinguishes pharmacies from the "health care facilities" covered
under the act and that the legislation uses "health care provider"
only to mean an operator of a facility.
The MRA was intended to set standards for copying and delivering
medical records needed for litigation, according to Rite Aid's
brief. Pharmacies were never considered during negotiations over
the law, Rite Aid said, because pharmacy records are typically
just copies of a doctor's prescription and lack the detail found
in doctors' records.
"The record's silence suggests that obtaining records from
pharmacists was not a matter of great interest in 1998 at all,"
Rite Aid said. "Pharmacy records normally would be of little
utility in litigation over medical treatment," because they do not
include why a drug was prescribed or what happened to patients
after they took the drug, according to the brief.
The appeals decision against Rite Aid said that while pharmacists
may once have been only technicians who filled prescriptions, they
now provide direct medical services and would be covered under the
MRA. But Rite Aid argued that to make that determination, the
appeals court relied on legislation passed after the MRA, which
expanded pharmacies' authority. The intent of the legislation at
the time it was passed is what should have been considered, Rite
Aid said.
"That pharmacists were given new health care authority after 1998
. . . has no bearing on what the Legislature intended in the 1998
legislation, which must be interpreted according to conditions
existing in 1998," Rite Aid said.
Rite Aid also argued that even if it was covered by the MRA, it
still had the right to charge $50 for the records, contending that
these charges were voluntary agreements accepted by the consumers
when they paid their invoices. The company emphasized that it
could deviate from the terms of the MRA if it engaged in the
voluntary agreements.
The appeals court had ruled against Rite Aid, holding that the
agreements were not specific enough in describing what the charges
were for and plaintiffs were not given "prior approval" of the
charges. In its brief, Rite Aid said the plaintiffs were free to
ask for more specificity and that by paying for the charges in
full, the plaintiffs gave their approval.
The [MRA] contains no requirements for how 'prior approval' must
be expressed, but it is difficult to imagine any expression of
approval more definite than voluntarily sending payment for the
invoiced amount," Rite Aid said.
An attorney for the plaintiffs said a decision in favor of Rite
Aid could allow them to charge upwards of $300 for medical records
requests.
"In light of the kinds of services pharmacies such as Rite Aid
provide -- they give shots, provide counseling -- it is common
sense, if not within the statute, that they fall under the statute
and that pharmacy records are in fact medical records,"
Paul Lagnese of Berger & Lagnese LLC said.
Representatives for Rite Aid declined to comment on Nov. 6.
The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Lagnese and David Paul of
Berger & Lagnese LLC and James Pietz of the Pietz Law Office LLC.
Rite Aid is represented by Carl Solano -- csolano@schnader.com --
and John Gisleson -- jgisleson@schnader.com -- of Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP.
The case is David M. Landay et al v. Rite Aid, case No. 20 WAP
2013 in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
ROYAL DUTCH: NYMEX Traders Sue Over Brent Oil Price Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Milhench and Alex Lawler, writing for Reuters, report that
four NYMEX traders have alleged that the North Sea Brent crude oil
market has been manipulated by oil majors and trading houses since
at least 2002, in a class action they brought in the wake of a
wide ranging European Commission inquiry.
Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Statoil, Morgan Stanley, Trafigura Beheer,
Trafigura, Phibro Trading and Vitol are all named as defendants in
the lawsuit filed in a Manhattan court in October.
In the filing the plaintiffs allege that traders at these
companies combined to manipulate Brent crude oil prices and Brent
futures contracts traded on NYMEX, citing periods in February 2011
and September 2012.
Morgan Stanley, Trafigura, BP, Shell and Vitol declined to
comment. A Statoil spokesman said it was not uncommon to see
private U.S. lawsuits filed following investigations by government
agencies. Phibro did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.
In May, the European Commission launched an inquiry into suspected
anti-competitive agreements relating to the submission of prices
to Platts, a unit of McGraw Hill, which operates an energy
information and global price reporting service.
Shortly after this, Chicago-based commodities trading firm Prime
International Trading Ltd filed a lawsuit against BP, Shell and
Statoil, alleging collusion to fix oil prices. The companies did
not respond at the time to requests for comment.
The European Commission's inquiry has yet to reach any
conclusions.
Platts said on Nov. 6 it was cooperating fully with the European
Commission's review and had not been charged with any wrong-doing.
Brent is a global benchmark for two-thirds of the world's
internationally-traded crude oil supplies. It is underpinned by
four physical crude streams -- Brent itself, Forties, Ekofisk and
Oseberg.
Physical volumes have dwindled in recent years, but the futures
contract is widely traded.
The plaintiffs in the October class action -- which include Kevin
McDonnell, who was a director of NYMEX Holdings, and other traders
working at NYMEX at the time -- allege that the defendants
reported false and misleading data for transactions to Platts
during its price assessment window.
The window, or market-on-close (MOC) system, is a daily half-hour
period in which Platts determines cash prices through a series of
bids, offers and trades.
Asked for comment a spokeswoman at Platts said: "Platts has not
been named as a defendant in this lawsuit."
The suit alleges that as major market participants, the defendants
have the power to push prices in a particular direction,
undermining the entire pricing structure for the Brent physical
and futures markets.
Specifically, the suit claims that in February 2011 and September
2012 the defendants engaged in disruptive and manipulative trading
during the Platts window "at least in part to benefit their Brent
crude oil derivatives positions".
Thomson Reuters, parent of Reuters news, competes with Platts in
providing news and information to the oil market.
SAKUMA BROTHERS: Faces Wage and Hour Suit by Seasonal Farmworkers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Merino Paz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sakuma Brothers Farms, Inc., Case No. 2:13-
cv-01918 (W.D. Wash., October 24, 2013) is an employment law
action against Sakuma pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act and Washington employment law.
The Plaintiff alleges that Sakuma engaged in a systematic scheme
of wage and hour violations against farmworkers at its farms in
Burlington and Mount Vernon, Washington. These violations include
failure to provide rest breaks, failure to keep accurate records
of the actual hours worked, failure to provide pay statements with
accurate statements of the actual hours worked, and failure to
comply with agreed-upon working arrangements.
Sakuma is a Washington corporation located in Burlington,
Washington. Each summer, Sakuma hires hundreds of migrant and
seasonal workers to pick fruit, including strawberries,
blueberries, blackberries, and raspberries, at its farms. Most of
Sakuma's migrant and seasonal workers do not speak English, and do
not speak Spanish well and, instead, speak indigenous Mixteco and
Triqui languages.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Marc C. Cote, Esq.
Beau C. Haynes, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
E-mail: tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com
mcote@tmdwlaw.com
bhaynes@tmdwlaw.com
- and -
Daniel G. Ford, Esq.
Sarah Leyrer, Esq.
COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
101 Yesler Way, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 464-5936
Facsimile: (206) 382-3386
E-mail: dan.ford@columbialegal.org
sarah.leyrer@columbialegal.org
STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS: ShapeMatch Cutting Guides May Cause Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Hartman, Esq., at Dallas W. Hartman P.C. reports that
recent claims against Stryker Orthopaedics, for its ShapeMatch
Cutting Guide, suggest that the medical manufacturing subsidiary
may be guilty of negligence and providing the public with a
defective surgical device. The ShapeMatch Cutting Guide was
recalled in April of 2013 when reported injuries due to the
product began to be discovered.
The Stryker ShapeMatch Cutting Guides were most often used during
knee surgeries to help surgeons determine the best place to make
an incision. Stryker decided to self-recall the cutting guide
when they were made aware of the potential harmful side effects it
could cause. Safety technicians at Stryker found that a defect in
the device's software failed to meet most surgeons' pre-op
planning strictures that were entered into a web-based
application. When surgeons attempted to manually fix the
parameters in order to compensate for Stryker's mistake, it was
eventually realized that these manual fixes had not been
previously approved by the Food and Drug Administration and were
therefore faulty.
The negative issues that arise from Stryker's faulty surgical
device include mobility limitations, multiple surgeries, joint
instability, lasting pain, and other adverse health problems. One
lawsuit in particular claims that shortly after the patient went
through knee surgery, she began experiencing serious joint
discomfort and limited mobility with pain. Upon further testing,
an examination revealed that the knee replacement surgery was done
incorrectly, not because the surgeon made a mistake, but because
the Stryker ShapeMatch Cutting Guide misaligned the incisions.
Stryker's attempts to refute their shoddy manufacturing jobs are
getting less and less respect. With other defective surgical
devices in the news, such as the Stryker Rejuvenate and Stryker
ABG II hip replacement systems, it is time the FDA steps in and
takes a closer look at the inner-workings of Stryker and its
parent-company, Howmedica Osteonics Corporation.
TEMPUR-SEALY: Mattresses Emit Chemicals, Class Claims in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Tempur-Sealy mattresses and
pillows emit volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde,
that have given customers allergic reactions, citing a class
action claims in California Federal Court.
Lead plaintiff Michael Dodson sued Tempur-Sealy and Tempur-pedic
North America, seeking class certification, punitive damages for
violations of California business law, restitution, a constructive
trust and an injunction.
"Tempur-pedic pillows and mattresses can and do emit a chemical
odor caused by volatile organic compounds ('VOCs') off-gassing
from Tempur-pedic's products," the lawsuit states. "Tempur-pedic
admits this fact in some of its sales and marketing materials but
downplays its significance and routinely omits telling its
potential and actual customers that numerous past Tempur-pedic
customers have complained about the odor. Tempur-pedic also omits
telling its potential and actual customers that numerous past
customers have reported allergic symptoms and reactions that those
customers attribute to the chemicals off-gassing from Tempur-
pedic's products.
"Instead of providing its potential and actual customers with all
the material facts available to Tempur-pedic and training its
retail distribution network and its own retail sales and marketing
representatives with all the material facts available to Tempur-
pedic concerning its past customer complaints of allergic
reactions to Tempur-pedic's products, Tempur-pedic has stated:
'Your new mattress may have a slight odor remaining from our
manufacturing process. This is normal. It's completely harmless
and will dissipate in a few days.' To the contrary, however,
Tempur-pedic has known since at least March of 2007, and possibly
earlier, that its Tempur-pedic customers have complained both of
significant odor problems that last for months and of allergic
reactions from Tempur-pedic products."
One of the VOCs the mattresses emit is formaldehyde, a "known
human carcinogen," according to the complaint. Yet since 2007 the
company has claimed that its products are "allergen resistant,"
Dodson says in the 66-page lawsuit.
The proposed class is represented by:
Allen Stewart, Esq.
ALLEN STEWART, P.C.
Republic Center, Suite 4000
325 North St. Paul St.
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 965-8700
Facsimile: (214) 965-8701
TEXAS BRINE: April 14 Trial Date Scheduled for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
David J. Mitchell, writing for The Advocate, reports that
plaintiffs' attorneys in the class-action lawsuit over the
Assumption Parish sinkhole said on Nov. 6 they aren't too worried
about new litigation between Texas Brine Co. and one of its
insurers.
The attorneys said they have an April 14 trial date in U.S.
District Court in New Orleans and have no plans of deviating from
having their clients' day in court.
"The lawyers for the class action are not concerned about Texas
Brine's dispute or lack thereof with their insurer in Texas,"
New Orleans attorney Lawrence Centola III said.
"It doesn't change the fact that we have an April 14 trial date.
It doesn't change fact that we are moving forward with our
April 14 trial date."
Backup insurer Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. has asked a
federal judge in Houston to declare the insurer does not have to
pay under its policy with Texas Brine.
Liberty contends Texas Brine, a Houston company, ignored warnings
about problems with a salt dome cavern believed to have had a
sidewall collapse that lead the sinkhole to surface on Aug. 3,
2012.
Mr. Centola cast doubt that any of the exclusions Liberty is
asking the court to uphold would apply to his clients or, if they
did, would face a high legal hurdle to prevail.
That confidence has not stopped Mr. Centola and Blayne Honeycutt,
of Denham Springs, another plaintiff's attorney, from fielding
calls on Nov. 6 from nervous clients after the Liberty suit came
to light.
Mr. Honeycutt is similarly not worried.
He maintains Texas Brine still has insurance and Liberty would not
have to start paying until $75 million in excess insurance
provided by other insurers is exhausted.
Liberty has $50 million in coverage under its policy with Texas
Brine.
"It is a situation we're going to monitor closely," Mr. Honeycutt
said. "I can assure you of that."
Texas Brine officials have said they will fight Liberty's claims
in court and believe they have coverage under Liberty's policy.
Liberty's attorneys in Houston have not returned messages for
comment, including on Nov. 6.
The sinkhole has prompted a string of lawsuits in state and
federal court from residents of Bayou Corne and Grand Bayou, large
landowners, pipeline companies, as well as state and parish
governments seeking to recoup the millions they are spending on
the sinkhole response.
Honeycutt, Mr. Centola and other class-action attorneys are
representing residents who have been under a 15-month-old
evacuation order since the sinkhole emerged last year.
Each plaintiff is ultimately competing, if victorious against
Texas Brine and other defendants, for the same pot of money
available through insurers and company funds.
Texas Brine has separately sued Vulcan Materials Co. and other
companies and filed third-party claims in the federal and state
litigation against them, alleging Vulcan and others share in the
blame for the sinkhole.
If Texas Brine prevails, these companies could provide additional
pockets.
Vulcan officials said on Nov. 5 they are still gathering
information for their response to Texas Brine's claims.
Assumption Parish Police Jury President Martin "Marty" Triche, who
is a lawyer by trade, contended the dispute between Texas Brine
and Liberty has no bearing on the parish's claims in court.
"The fact that you don't have insurance or an insurance company is
trying to claim some exclusion under the policy doesn't in any way
relieve the responsible party from the obligation to pay our
bills," Mr. Triche said.
Mr. Centola noted that the class-action has the first trial date
among all the suits against Texas Brine.
Liberty filed suit against Texas Brine and Occidental Chemical
Corp. on Oct. 22 in U.S. District Court in Houston and has its
first status conference planned Jan. 13.
Texas Brine has successfully moved to have many of the residents'
suits shifted to federal court where they are being consolidated
into the class-action case before U.S. District Judge Jay C.
Zainey in New Orleans.
Mr. Centola said the class has about 100 property owners in it.
TRI COUNTY SECURITY: Collective Action Seeks Relief Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Young, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. Tri County Security Agency, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-05971-BMS
(E.D. Pa., October 11, 2013) is a collective action seeking all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Tri County Security Agency, Inc., is a corporate entity
headquartered in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania (Bucks County). The
Company is a full-service security agency that provides security
services at office buildings, manufacturing plants, banks,
hospitals, college campuses and gated communities. The Company is
an employer covered by the FLSA and the PMWA.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
Twining Office Center, Suite 211
715 Twining Road
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
TRUMAN MEDICAL: Refuses to Properly Pay OT Wages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Rhodes, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Truman Medical Center Incorporated, Case No. 4:13-cv-
00990-NKL (W.D. Mo., October 11, 2013) is brought for unpaid
overtime compensation and related penalties and damages. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's practice and policy is to
misclassify employees as exempt and willfully fail and refuse to
properly pay overtime compensation due to the Plaintiff, and all
other similarly situated employees, who work in the Defendants'
facility in Kansas City, Missouri.
Truman Medical Center Incorporated is a Missouri Public Benefit
Corporation doing business in the state of Missouri and throughout
the United States, with their principal place of business in
Kansas City, Missouri. The Company predominantly provides primary
health care, outreach and behavioral health services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Paulus, Esq.
Jordan Ross Bergus, Esq.
PAULUS LAW FIRM, LLC
8640 N. Green Hills Road, Suite 42
Kansas City, MO 64154
Telephone: (816) 581-4040
Facsimile: (816) 781-8889
E-mail: j.bergus@pauluslawfirm.com
ryan.paulus@pauluslawfirm.com
TRUMAN MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Billing Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------
Brianne Pfannenstiel, writing for Kansas City Business Journal,
reports that on July 3, 2012, Ethan Taylor was in a car crash that
sent him into surgery at Truman Medical Center in Kansas City. He
racked up more than $23,000 in medical bills that he assumed would
be sent to Aetna, his health insurance carrier.
But Truman refused to submit the bill to Mr. Taylor's insurance
provider and instead went after Mr. Taylor personally, according
to a new class action suit filed against Truman in Jackson County
Circuit Court.
It's a practice that Mr. Taylor's attorney, Mitch Burgess, said
has become relatively common. He's already filed pending class
actions against Research Medical Center and Saint Luke's Hospital
for similar charges. He says it's an effort by hospitals to get
more money out of patients. That's because patients with health
insurance are entitled to discounted rates that their insurance
carriers negotiate with providers ahead of time.
But patients who have been in car accidents generally receive
settlements through their auto insurance and thus have a separate
means of payment.
If hospitals bill the patients directly or put a lien on those
insurance claims, hospitals can seek the full payment amount
rather than the discounted rate through the patient's health
insurance.
Representatives for Truman Medical Center were not immediately
available to comment.
"I was seeing this going on in my personal injury practice,"
Mr. Burgess said. "I had clients who had health insurance and yet
had liens filed on their personal injury cases or had these
outstanding balances when I knew they had insurance. So that's
kind of what first struck a chord with me to say something's not
right here."
He argues that hospitals are contractually obligated to submit
those bills to patients' health insurance providers, but hospitals
claim they are within their legal rights to assert those liens.
In Mr. Burgess' case against Saint Luke's, the trial court
originally ruled in favor of the hospital. But the Missouri Court
of Appeals remanded the case, ruling that the plaintiff's contract
with her health insurance provider extinguished her debt to the
hospital, and that a lien cannot be asserted where there is no
debt to be paid.
That case is continuing to make its way through the courts.
"Honestly, this is the kind of case that I just think is not
fair," Mr. Burgess said. It's an interesting issue, but it struck
me because I just knew that it wasn't fair to my clients to either
be paying this out of their settlements or having their credit
affected. It's one of those fights that I feel good about
fighting."
UMPQUA BANK: Judge Allows Overdraft Fee Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Hunsberger, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a
federal judge in California has allowed a class-action lawsuit
over Umpqua Bank's overdraft fee practices to proceed to trial,
though he threw out more than half the legal claims against the
bank.
The order by U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar's also offers a
window into how costly the debit-card reordering practice -- used
by many banks during the last decade -- could be for consumers.
Amber Hawthorne filed a lawsuit in 2011, claiming the Portland-
based bank unjustly enriched itself and violated her contract in
how it charged overdraft fees to her account.
The lawsuit sought to recover at least $5 million in damages and
fees for Umpqua customers who got hit with an overdraft fee after
the bank re-sequenced their debit-card transactions from highest
to lowest instead of in the order they were received.
Umpqua Bank, a subsidiary of Portland-based Umpqua Holdings Corp.,
asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
Judge Tigar's Oct. 25 order dismissed the breach of contract
claim, finding that Umpqua's reordering of its transaction did not
breach its contract with consumers because its "Overdraft
Disclosure" in customer checking-account agreements warned of the
practice. Judge Tigar also dismissed Ms. Hawthorne's claims
against the bank of unjust enrichment, breach of implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the "unfair" part
of California's consumer protection act.
But Judge Tigar allowed other claims to proceed to trial,
including the allegations that the bank's overdraft practices were
fraudulent and unlawful under California's Unfair Competition Law.
The judge also ruled that the bank's debit cards are governed by
California's consumer legal remedies act.
The lawsuit alleges that the bank misled customers into thinking
their debits would post to their checking accounts in
chronological order. The bank decided when, whether and how to
post debit transactions to maximize overdraft fee revenue,
Ms. Hawthorne alleged. It also regrouped transactions that
occurred on separate days before re-ordering them from highest to
lowest, according to the complaint.
That resulted in more overdraft fees than if the transactions had
been posted in the order in which they were made, Ms. Hawthorne's
suit says. Account statements given customers, however, presented
transactions from lowest to highest, the lawsuit states.
A table in Judge Tigar's order in the class action lawsuit against
Umpqua Bank shows how reordering transactions can impact an
account's balance and total overdraft fees. In Figure 1A, checking
account drafts are ordered chronologically, resulting in one $35
overdraft fee. In Figure 2A, the bank re-orders the same drafts
from highest to lowest at the end of the day, resulting in five
$35 overdraft fees ($175 total).
The case has not yet been certified as a class action. A ruling on
that matter isn't expected until mid-2014.
A bank spokeswoman said it does not comment on pending litigation.
Hassan Zavareei, an attorney for Hawthorne, said the case against
Umpqua remains strong.
"Although many banks engaged in high-to-low reordering of debit
card transactions, Umpqua is one of the few banks that actually
falsely stated on customer bank statements that the transactions
were being ordered low-to-high," said Mr. Zavareei of Tycko &
Zavareei in Washington, D.C.
UNILEVER US: Faces "Wells" Suit Over Suave Professionals Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Wells and Catherine Reny, on Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., LEK
Inc., and Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever Home & Personal Care USA,
3:13-cv-04749-EDL (N.D. Cal., October 11, 2013) is brought to seek
redress for the Plaintiffs and all others nationwide, other than
residents of the states of Illinois, Alabama, Kentucky, Nevada or
Wisconsin, who purchased the Suave(R) Professionals Keratin
Infusion 30 Day Smoothing Kit from the date in 2011 that the
Treatment was made available to consumers through the present.
Unilever is a subsidiary of the dual-listed company consisting of
Unilever N.V. in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and Unilever PLC in
London, United Kingdom. Unilever, which includes the Suave brand,
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey. Unilever manufactured, marketed, designed, promoted and
distributed the Treatment.
Knowlton Development Corporation is a foreign corporation
headquartered in Quebec, Canada. LEK, also a foreign corporation
headquartered in Quebec, and is a subsidiary of Knowlton. LEK,
formerly known as Les Emballages Knowlton, Inc., manufactured the
Product for sale by Unilever in the United States. Conopco is a
New York corporation headquartered in Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey. LEK obtained a contract from Conopco for the manufacture
of the Product, with LEK and Conopco being responsible for the
distribution of the manufactured Product to retailers.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
One Market
Spear Tower, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 293-8039
Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com
- and -
Peter Safirstein, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
Five Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 564-1637
Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com
emetcalf@forthepeople.com
- and -
Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
One Tampa City Center
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 314-6484
Facsimile: (813) 222-2406
E-mail: cpolaszek@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jana Eisinger, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JANA EISINGER, PLLC
11 West Prospect Avenue
Mount Vernon, NY 10550
Telephone: (914) 418-4111
Facsimile: (914) 455-0213
E-mail: Jana.Eisinger@gmail.com
UNITED SERVICES: "Langan" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Langan, a disabled U.S. veteran, sued in the
California Superior Court for the Contra Costa County United
Services Automobile Association, et al., for allegedly ruining his
credit. The pro se case was removed to the California Federal
Court.
The Defendants are United Services Automobile Association; United
Services Automobile Association Federal Savings Bank; United
Recovery Systems, LP; URS Management, LLC; George Williams;
Discover Bank; Discover Financial Services; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;
General Electric Capital Corporation; GE Capital Retail Bank; Cach
LLC, formerly doing business as Square Two Financial, formerly
doing business as Collect America; J.A. Cambece Law Office, P.C.;
J.P. Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc.; JP Morgan
Chase Bank, also known as: Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Experian Data
Corp.; Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Experian Services
Corp.; Trans Union LLC; Equifax Inc.; Holley Navarre Water System,
Inc.; Gulf Credit Services, Inc., also known as: Collection
Services, Inc., also known as: CSI; Verizon Communications Inc.;
Verizon Federal, Inc.; Verizon California, Inc.; Pacific Bell
Telephone Company; and AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.
The case is Langan v. United Services Automobile Association, et
al., Case No. 3:13-cv-04998, in the U.S. District Court for the
California Northern District (San Francisco).
UNITED STATES: Employees Affected by Shutdown Seek Double Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Nelson, writing for US News, reports that instead of saving
money, the Oct. 1-16 partial government shutdown may cost
taxpayers -- big time.
Federal workers deemed essential during the 16-day partial
government shutdown are entitled to double payment for the work
they performed Oct. 1-5, according to a lawsuit filed on their
behalf.
Attorney Heidi Burakiewicz, who filed the suit Oct. 24 in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims, says the case is not about "greedy
federal employees seeking to get double pay."
Rather, she says, the Fair Labor Standards Act allows the workers
to sue for double their normal wages to compensate them for the
troubles they suffered by not receiving their pay on time.
Ms. Burakiewicz stresses that many of the 1.3 million federal
workers deemed essential during the shutdown earn hourly wages and
live paycheck-to-paycheck. The original plaintiffs on the suit
were five Bureau of Prisons employees, who say they were forced to
make difficult health and bill-paying decisions during the
shutdown.
Congress authorized back pay for furloughed and "essential"
federal workers as part of the deal that reopened all government
functions.
"They were all retroactively paid for the base pay they should
have received, but that doesn't take into consideration what the
government put them through by not receiving their full paycheck
on their regularly scheduled payday," Ms. Burakiewicz says.
There are currently hundreds of plaintiffs and anyone seeking to
join can fill out a two-page form that's "not labor-intensive at
all," the lawyer says.
Possible awards "vary from person to person," Ms. Burakiewicz
says, and she hasn't tabulated the government's possible
liability. Sometime soon, she plans to file a motion asking the
court to conditionally certify the case and order that notices be
sent to all possible plaintiffs, inviting them to join the case.
There is not currently a deadline for signing up for the lawsuit.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.
"This case is different than a traditional class action,"
Ms. Burakiewicz says. "When you sue under the Fair Labor
Standards Act it requires people to opt in to the case. Every
single individual needs to fill out paperwork and submit it."
UNITED STATES: FEMA Sends Settlement Checks in Formaldehyde Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanh Truong, writing for WWLTV.com, reports that Debra Coleman
was among tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents who joined
class action lawsuits against manufacturers of FEMA trailers
delivered in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The plaintiffs claimed dangerous levels of formaldehyde caused
health complications.
Ms. Coleman said she and her husband spent more than a year in a
FEMA trailer as they rebuilt their Gentilly home.
"I had asthma and it would get worse in the trailer. My husband
would get headaches. His nose would run in that trailer," said
Coleman.
The manufacturers eventually settled. Many of the plaintiffs
recently received their settlement checks. Ms. Coleman's check
arrived on Nov. 1. The amount was $33.02
"I'm not disputing that," Ms. Coleman said. "I know it was a
class action thing and the lawyers were going to get a lot of the
money."
The concern Ms. Coleman has is the second batch of settlement
checks she and her husband received. The information appeared to
be correct -- the same dollar amount, the same address, the same
first name. But the last names were wrong.
"I'm Debra Coleman. The second check was to Debra MacDonald.
My husband got his check. The first one was to him, Clarence
Coleman. But the second one was to a Clarence McDaniel," said
Ms. Coleman.
She said she deposited the check made out to her with no issue but
was unsure of what to do with the second round of checks she and
her husband received. She tried calling the phone number on the
back of the check but says she got no reply.
Ms. Coleman said she knows of at least a dozen other people who
joined the class action lawsuit who also received two checks.
"It's rather odd that they would receive a second check with the
wrong last name. Something is going on here obviously," said
Cynthia Albert of the Better Business Bureau.
Ms. Albert said she's unsure if the multiple issuing of checks is
an administrative mistake or part of a scam.
Fake checking scams, she said, are fairly common but often entail
much larger amounts of money. While the checks involved may seem
insignificant, Ms. Albert said possible mistakes on a mass scale
can add up.
"That could be a tremendous amount of money, and that's why I
think anybody receiving something like this should report it
immediately," said Ms. Albert.
The Better Business Bureau urges people to call FEMA directly to
report issues with settlement checks. It also reminds people to
avoid giving out personal information when dealing with unknown
entities.
FEMA did not respond to request for comment.
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Abalone Divers Lose Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a group of abalone divers have lost a class
action seeking millions of dollars in compensation from the
Victorian Government over a deadly abalone virus.
The ganglioneuritis virus broke out at an abalone farm in Port
Fairy in 2005 and then went on to wipe out the wild abalone
population across western Victoria.
The lawsuit maintained that the virus spread because the State
Government failed to put in place proper bio-security measures,
costing them their livelihoods.
On Nov. 7 a Supreme Court judge found the State Government had not
been negligent.
Justice David Beach said one could only speculate how the disease
came to be in the area and the plaintiff did not show the state
had failed in its duty of care.
He said the Government did its best to understand a difficult and
changing set of circumstances and that it is only hindsight that
permits criticism to be levelled.
One of the parties to the action, abalone diver Len McCall, is
devastated by the decision.
"We've suffered substantial losses and anguish over time," he
said.
The group is considering whether to appeal against the decision.
YAHOO! INC: Faces Two Privacy-Invasion Class Suits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits have been filed against Yahoo! Inc. in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
October 25, 2013. The lawsuits allege that Yahoo! intercepts and
reads e-mails of nonsubscribers without their consent.
Information about these nonsubscribers is, then, allegedly sold to
advertisers.
The cases are:
(1) Holland, et al. v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-04980-HRL,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose); and
(2) Nobles v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-04989-DMR, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland).
Eric Holland, et al., are represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Matthew Brian George, Esq.
Heidi Marie Hansen Kalscheur, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: mbg@girardgibbs.com
dcg@girardgibbs.com
hhk@girardgibbs.com
Halima Nobles is represented by:
Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148
Oakland, CA 94661
Telephone: (510) 237-9700
Facsimile: (510) 237-4616
E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com
- and -
Sydney Jay Hall, Esq.
SYDNEY JAY HALL LAW OFFICE
1308 Bayshore Hwy., Suite 220
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 342-1830
E-mail: sydneyhalllawoffice@yahoo.com
* Australian Firms Forgo $204MM in US Class Action Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that the
failure of Australian companies to take part in securities class
actions in the US has deprived them of $204 million in
settlements, according to class action consultant Goal Group.
This is the amount that Australian companies, trustees and
superannuation funds are estimated to have forgone by declining to
participate in US class actions between 2000 and last year.
* Judges Apply Procedural Rules Rigorously After Jackson Reforms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hogan Lovells reports that a number of recent cases suggest that
some judges are now applying procedural rules more rigorously as a
result of the implementation of the Jackson reforms. The case of
Jones v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (2013) (a
class action) is a useful illustration of the courts' application
of the refined overriding objective following these reforms to
civil litigation.
On April 1, 2013, mainly as a result of Jackson LJ's review of
civil litigation costs, several changes to the civil litigation
process came into effect. These included changes to the costs
regime, funding, case management and disclosure, which were
implemented by way of legislation as well as amendments to the
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
On July 9, 2013, in the case of Jones v Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change (2013), the High Court had to consider
whether to grant the defendant an 'unless order' (these may be
used in cases where there is no alternative method of securing a
party's compliance with an order) in view of the changes made to
the overriding objective as part of the Jackson reforms.
* Shareholder Derivative Suits Replacing Class Actions v. D&Os
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reports that shareholder derivative litigation
is replacing class action lawsuits as the primary legal exposure
for directors and officers and their insurers, legal experts said.
Steven Boughal, New York-based vice president at The Hartford
Financial Services Group Inc., noted during a Nov. 5 panel
discussion at the Professional Liability Underwriting Society's
26th international conference that while derivative suits were
popular in 1970s, class actions had supplanted derivative suits
until recently.
Tower C. Snow Jr. -- tsnow@cooley.com -- a partner at San
Francisco-based law firm Cooley L.L.P., noted that recent Supreme
Court rulings have made it more difficult to get class actions
certified, prompting attorneys to file derivative suits instead.
"Now, 40% of class action suits are dismissed," Mr. Snow said.
George C. Aguilar -- gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- partner at San
Diego-based Robbins Arroyo L.L.P., said it is relatively easy to
file a derivative lawsuit against a board of directors.
"All you need is one shareholder," Mr. Aguilar said.
Mr. Boughal said in addition to the increasing frequency of
shareholder derivative litigation, the severity of the settlements
is rising, citing the $139 million out-of-court settlement paid by
New York-based News Corp. in April as an example.
"Seeing these kinds of numbers is a game-changer," Mr. Boughal
said.
He said many companies now are opting to settle with the
plaintiffs rather risk a trial.
"If the plaintiffs can overcome your motion to dismiss, you could
be in trouble," he said. "The risk of taking one of these
derivative lawsuits to trial can be significant."
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.
Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.
* * * End of Transmission * * *