/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140204.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 24
Headlines
99 CENTS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
APLINGTON KAUFMAN: Court Strikes Portions of Responsive Pleading
APPLEILLINOIS LLC: Bid to Appeal Class Cert. in Driver Suit Tossed
AU OPTRONICS: SC Says Mississippi Suit Can't Proceed as Class
BEST BEHAVIORAL: Faces Suit Over Violations of FLSA and Wage Acts
BFI WASTE: Truck Driver Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
BLACKWATER DIVING: Clarification Bid in "Ralston" Suit Denied
CAREER EDUCATION: Seeks Initial Approval of $27.5MM Settlement
CAREER EDUCATION: Amador Opt-Out Plaintiffs Pursue Fraud Claims
CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery in "Enea" Stayed Pending Motions
CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit in Ore. Stayed Pending Appeal
CAREER EDUCATION: Consolidated "Vasquez" Suit Has 1047 Plaintiffs
CAREER EDUCATION: Wants Rehearing of Ruling in "Wilson" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Settlement in "Nimely" Labor Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: "Vickers" Labor Suit Settlement Now Approved
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery Proceeds in Lawsuit v. Subsidiary
COLUMBIA SOUTH: Deprived Workers of Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
COSTA INC: Shareholders Suit Parties Must Confer Over Discovery
DOMESTIC DETAILING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Ariz. Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Nasdaq, Underwriters Challenge IPO Suit Ruling
FEDEX GROUND: Obtains Initial Approval of DeCesare Suit Settlement
FIRST MED: Employees File Class Action Over Lack of Layoff Notice
FELTEX: Court Orders $1MM Payment in Investor Class Action
FUKUDA TRADING: Recalls Macaroni, Noodles Due to Undeclared Wheat
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 39,300 Sierra and Silverado Trucks
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Custom Aluminum" Suit Transferred to New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Everett" Antitrust Suit Transferred to New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Int'l Extrusions" Suit Transferred to New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Pierce" Antitrust Suit Transferred to New York
HOPKINS COUNTY: Court Dismisses "Conway" Suit Against Jail
HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Blade 500 X Remote Controlled Helicopters
KING CANADA: Recalls Spray-Coat Aerosol Product
L'AUBAINERIE: Recalls TAG and RIDER Children's Outerwear
LADENBURG THALMANN: Stock Suit Stayed After FriendFinder's Ch. 11
LADENBURG THALMANN: Removes Suit Over WEMU Shares Sale to ND Cal.
LONG ISLAND POWER: Judge Hears Motion to Dismiss Sandy Suit
MCCREA EQUIPMENT: Sued by HVAC Technicians Over FLSA Violations
MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls Remington Mighty Sweep Electric Blower
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Stop-and-Frisk Litigation
NONG SHIM CO: Accused of Fixing Prices of Korean Noodles in U.S.
NOVARTIS AG: Accused of Selling Excedrin Migraine at Higher Price
NU SKIN: Block & Leviton Files Class Action in Utah
PACCAR: Recalls 118 Trucks Due to Damaged Converters
PLASTI-DIP: Recalls U.S. Versions of Coating Products
REEBOK-CCM: Recalls EP20K Senior (SR) Elbow Pads
SALCOR INC: "Levy" Suit Removed to Washington District Court
SOUTH DAKOTA: Judge Allows Foster Care Class Action to Proceed
SPRINT NEXTEL: "Bennett" Securities Suit in Discovery Stage
STATE FARM: Sends Out Unsolicited Fax Advertisements, Suit Claims
TARGET CORP: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Data Security Breach
TIFFIN: Recalls 8 Allegro Motorhomes Over Injury Risk
TIME WARNER: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Extra Cable Fees
TRIUMPH: Recalls 338 Tiger Explorer and Trophy SE Motorcycles
VISA: Court Awards Atty. Fees and Costs in Antitrust Litigation
VIVENDI CANADA: Blake Cassels Discusses Class Action Ruling
WALTER INVESTMENT: Securities Litigation in Florida Now Dismissed
*********
99 CENTS: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Munir Hussain and Sergio Crispin, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated who were employed by 99 Cents The
Limit, Corner Z Super Market Inc, Solomon Dweck and Ajay Sarin,
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by 99
Cents The Limit, Corner Z Super Market Inc., Solomon Dweck and/or
Ajay Sarin v. 99 Cents The Limit Inc, Corner Z Super Market Inc.,
Solomon Dweck and Ajay Sarin, and/or any other entities affiliated
with or controlled by 99 Cents The Limit, Corner Z Super Market
Inc., Solomon Dweck and/or Ajay Sarin, Case No. 1:14-cv-00160-JBW-
RML (E.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime wages, and spread of hours compensation owed to
the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons, who are
presently or were formerly employed by 99 Cents The Limit Inc.
The action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class
consisting of similarly situated employees, who worked for the
Defendants as inventory clerks, store clerks, cashiers, janitors,
grocery stockers, and other related tasks.
The Defendants are engaged in the retail business and operate a
discount store in Brooklyn, New York.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
111 Broadway, Suite 1403
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
llusher@vandallp.com
APLINGTON KAUFMAN: Court Strikes Portions of Responsive Pleading
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur issued a memorandum order
sua sponte due to two problematic aspects of a responsive pleading
filed by Gregory Himelick and Collection Professionals, Inc., two
of the defendants in the case captioned WILLIAM F. RUBRECHT,
behalf of plaintiff and the class members described below,
Plaintiff, v. ROBERT B. STEELE; APLINGTON KAUFMAN MCCLINTOCK
STEELE AND BARRY LTD.; COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, INC.; and GREGORY
HIMELICK, Defendants, CASE NO. 13 C 7538, (N.D. Ill.).
"To begin with, this Court continues to be astonished (perhaps
appalled would be a better word) by the number of lawyers who
practice regularly in the federal courts, yet appear to believe
that they know pleading protocol better than the drafters of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules")," Judge Shadur said.
"For example," he continued, "that mindset manifests itself all
too often in a departure from the clear and unambiguous language
of Rule 8(b)(5), which specifies the terms of a disclaimer that
allows a defendant to avoid the mandate of Rule 8(b)(1)(B) to
"admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing
party" when the defendant's counsel can do so in the subjective
and objective good faith required by Rule 11(b). Here the law firm
representing CP Defendants was already a well-established firm in
the dim past when this Court first entered into the practice of
law (some 6-1/2 decades ago), and its two members who are
reflected as having crafted the Answer have respectively had a
quarter century and a decade of practice under their belts -- yet
look at the locution that they have employed in Answer paragraphs
9, 10, 14 and 15 instead of the straightforward disclaimer mapped
out by Rule 8(b)(5):
Upon reasonable inquiry, the information known and readily
available to CP Defendants renders them unable to admit the truth
of the information [or "remaining information"] contained in
Paragraph -.
"This Court's rejection of such an attempted substitute for the
Rule-specified disclaimer is not a mere quibble. Defense counsel's
usage omits entirely any reference to the pleader's belief, the
key term (in addition to "information") that makes the
satisfaction of a defendant's qualification for the benefit of a
deemed denial a more demanding task. Accordingly each of the
paragraphs of the Answer referred to in this memorandum order is
stricken, with leave granted to file an appropriate amendment to
those paragraphs," ruled Judge Shadur.
A copy of the District Court's January 14, 2014 Memorandum Order
is available at http://is.gd/LRKVWqfrom Leagle.com.
APPLEILLINOIS LLC: Bid to Appeal Class Cert. in Driver Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, denied a
second petition by W. Curtis Smith for permission to appeal a
magistrate judge's denial of his challenge to the certification of
a class action lawsuit. Mr. Smith is the remaining defendant in
the class action suit captioned GLENN DRIVER et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Respondents, v. APPLEILLINOIS, LLC, et al., Defendants, NO.
13-8029.
According to the Seventh Circuit, there was a material alteration
in the present case -- the change in the class definition.
However, that's not what the Defendant wants to challenge.
"He's concerned with several orders issued by the district court
since his first Rule 23(f) petition was filed and denied more than
three years ago, such as an order allowing the plaintiffs to use
"representative evidence" -- in effect, allowing damages to be
extrapolated from a sample of the class members, rather than
requiring that they be calculated for all 15,000 of them
individually. The words "granting" and "denying" class
certification can be stretched only so far. They can't embrace
every order the judge issues that a party doesn't like. The
interim orders in this case may for all we know have undermined
the reasons for certifying a class in the first place, and the
defendant can always move the magistrate judge to decertify the
class on the basis of new developments, as indeed he did; the
judge's denial of that motion was the precipitant of the
defendant's petition for permission to appeal. Should the judge
continue to refuse, her refusals won't be appealable under Rule
23(f). A refusal to decertify a class is neither an order granting
nor an order denying certification; it is merely a denial of
reconsideration of a previous ruling," ruled the Seventh Circuit.
A copy of the Seventh Circuit's January 15, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Noi69gfrom Leagle.com.
AU OPTRONICS: SC Says Mississippi Suit Can't Proceed as Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Sotomayor of the Supreme Court of the United States
reversed judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit in the case captioned MISSISSIPPI EX REL.
JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER, v. AU OPTRONICS
CORPORATION ET AL., NO. 12-1036, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.
Respondents manufacture liquid crystal displays, or LCDs. In March
2011, the State of Mississippi sued them in state court, alleging
that they had formed an international cartel to restrict
competition and raise prices in the LCD market. The State claimed
that these actions violated two Mississippi statutes: the
Mississippi Antitrust Act, Miss. Code Ann. Section 75-21-1 et seq.
(2009), and the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, Section 75-
24-1 et seq. The State sought injunctive relief and civil
penalties under both statutes, along with punitive damages, costs,
and attorney's fees. It also sought restitution for its own
purchases "of LCD products and the purchases of its citizens."
Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA or Act),
defendants in civil suits may remove "mass actions" from state to
federal court. CAFA defines a "mass action" as "any civil action
. . . in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are
proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs'
claims involve common questions of law or fact."
"The question presented is whether a suit filed by a State as the
sole plaintiff constitutes a "mass action" under CAFA where it
includes a claim for restitution based on injuries suffered by the
State's citizens," noted Justice Sotomayor. "We hold that it does
not."
According to CAFA's plain text, a "mass action" must involve
monetary claims brought by 100 or more persons who propose to try
those claims jointly as named plaintiffs. Because the State of
Mississippi is the only named plaintiff in the LCD action, the
case must be remanded to state court, Justice Sotomayor concluded.
A copy of the Supreme Court's January 14, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/a83zECfrom Leagle.com.
BEST BEHAVIORAL: Faces Suit Over Violations of FLSA and Wage Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivelisse Montes, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, 10824 Harrow Road, Philadelphia, PA 19154 v. Best
Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., 5043 Frankford Avenue, Philadelphia,
PA 19124 and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-00121-JD (E.D. Pa.,
January 9, 2014) seeks to redress violations by the Defendants of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Ms. Montes alleges that the Defendants intentionally failed to pay
her, and those similarly situated, overtime compensation earned
while in the Defendants' employ.
Best Behavioral Healthcare, Inc. is headquartered in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The identities of the Doe Defendants are presently
unknown.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
rswartz@swartz-legal.com
BFI WASTE: Truck Driver Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Williams, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. BFI Waste Services, LLC, d/b/a Republic Services, a Foreign
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00014-CWR-LRA (S.D.
Miss., January 9, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other
relief. The case is brought on behalf of similarly situated truck
drivers.
BFI Waste Services, LLC, doing business as Republic Services, is a
foreign limited liability company that operates and conducts
business in, among other locations, Rankin County, Mississippi.
The Company provides waste removal services to its customers.
The Plaintiff is represented:
Christopher William Espy, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER W. ESPY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC
P. O. Box 13722
Jackson, MS 39236-3722
Telephone: (601) 812-5300
Facsimile: (601) 500-5719
E-mail: chris.espy@espylawpllc.com
BLACKWATER DIVING: Clarification Bid in "Ralston" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID S. RALSTON v. BLACKWATER DIVING, LLC. Section: "A" (4),
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6348, (E.D. La.), is a collective action filed
by employees of Blackwater Diving on November 6, 2013, to recover
unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the putative class
members are "all current and former hourly offshore personnel who
have been employed at any time by Defendant [] within the past
three years."
Pending before the court is Blackwater Diving's Motion for More
Definite Statement seeking an Order from the Court requiring Mr.
Ralston to amend his complaint to (1) clarify and identify the job
titles and duties of "offshore personnel"; (2) to define the scope
of and the persons who are members of the proposed class; (3) to
assert factual allegations which demonstrate why the FLSA's seaman
exemption does not apply to Plaintiff or the proposed members of
the class; and (4) to assert factual allegations which demonstrate
how Plaintiff and the putative class members are similarly
situated.
In a January 15, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/PeVUCZfrom
Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby denied Blackwater
Diving's request saying the Plaintiff's complaint has provided the
Defendant with adequate notice as to who the putative class
consists of -- "hourly offshore employees who are not seaman" --
and based upon this classification, which job duties or at least
the "universe of the class functionality" of the proposed putative
class's job duties.
CAREER EDUCATION: Seeks Initial Approval of $27.5MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities suit Ross, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, et al. pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois moved for preliminary Court approval
of a $27.5 million settlement of the suit, according to Career
Education's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 6, 2013.
Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On January
13, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the Company
and various individuals as defendants and claiming that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making material misstatements in
and omitting material information from the Company's public
disclosures concerning its campuses' job placement rates and its
compliance with accreditation standards. The complaint further
claimed that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by virtue of their positions as control persons
of the Company. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages,
interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On March 23,
2012, the Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV, the Oklahoma
Police Pension & Retirement Systems, and the Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System, as lead plaintiffs in the action.
On May 3, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, asserting the same claims alleged in the initial
complaint, and naming the Company and two former executive
officers as defendants. Lead plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 19, 2009 and November 21, 2011 (the "Class"). On October
30, 2012, the Court ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss,
granting it as to one of the former executive officer defendants
and denying it as to the other defendants. On January 28, 2013,
defendants filed answers to the consolidated amended complaint.
Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the
claims and contentions alleged by plaintiffs in the action and all
charges of wrongdoing or liability against them.
On June 12, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the litigation,
subject to Court approval and settlement of the shareholder
derivative actions and subsequent related claims ("Proposed
Derivative Settlement"). Pursuant to the terms of the agreement,
the plaintiff class will receive a total of $27.5 million in
consideration of the proposed settlement and for the benefit of
the class members participating in the settlement. The company
believes it is probable that the Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurers will pay $22.5 million, $10.0 million
of which is to be funded by the terms of the Proposed Derivative
Settlement, and therefore recorded a receivable for this amount in
the second quarter of 2013. The Company may initially pay the
remaining $5.0 million for the benefit of the Class. However, the
Company anticipates seeking recovery of the remaining $5.0 million
from one of its insurers but has not recorded a receivable for
this additional amount as of September 30, 2013. In exchange for
the $27.5 million cash consideration, among other things, the lead
plaintiffs will dismiss the litigation with prejudice and the
parties will release all claims. On October 31, 2013, plaintiffs
moved for preliminary Court approval of the settlement reached by
the parties.
CAREER EDUCATION: Amador Opt-Out Plaintiffs Pursue Fraud Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-out plaintiffs in the settled Amador, et al. v. California
Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation case continue to
pursue their individual claims, according to Career Education's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2013.
Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education
Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and
Career Education Corporation. On September 27, 2007, Allison
Amador and 36 other current and former students of the California
Culinary Academy ("CCA") filed a complaint in the California
Superior Court in San Francisco. Plaintiffs plead their original
complaint as a putative class action and allege four causes of
action: fraud; constructive fraud; violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law; and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions
process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the
school's reputation, the value of the education, the
competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students'
employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of
statistics published by CCA.
On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams
and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class.
The Adams action also was styled as a class action and was based
on the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempted
to plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action.
The Adams action was deemed related to the Amador action and was
being handled by the same judge.
The parties executed a formal settlement agreement as of November
1, 2010. On April 18, 2012, the Court issued an order granting
final approval of the settlement and on April 19, 2012, the Court
entered a final judgment on the settlement.
On June 3, 2011, the same attorneys representing the class in the
Amador action filed a separate complaint in the San Francisco
County Superior Court entitled Abarca v. California Culinary
Academy, Inc., et al, on behalf of 115 individuals. On June 15,
2011, the same attorneys filed another action in the San Francisco
County Superior Court entitled Andrade, et al. v. California
Culinary Academy, Inc., et al., on behalf of another 31
individuals. On August 12, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a third
action on behalf of five individuals entitled Aprieto, et al. v.
California Culinary Academy. New counsel has substituted in to
represent 78 of the individuals and the Court has entered orders
allowing class counsel to withdraw from representing the remaining
individuals. On January 18, 2013, new counsel filed a complaint
entitled Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy on behalf
of two individuals. All of the plaintiffs in these four suits are
opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and
therefore not subject to the Amador settlement. None of these four
suits are being prosecuted as a class action. They each allege the
same claims as were previously alleged in the Amador action, plus
claims for breach of contract and violations of the repealed
California Education Code. The plaintiffs in these cases seek
damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. All of these cases have been deemed related and
transferred to the same judge who handled the Amador case.
Claims by individual plaintiffs who are not represented by counsel
have been dismissed. There are 80 plaintiffs who have not settled
or dismissed their claims. The Company has filed answers to the
complaints filed by the remaining 80 individual plaintiffs.
The Court has set a trial date on eight test cases for March 24,
2014. The test cases will be tried to the Court and not to a jury.
The parties are engaged in discovery relating to the test cases.
CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery in "Enea" Stayed Pending Motions
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation,
California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie
Mae, Inc. is stayed pending a ruling on motions to dismiss and to
strike class action allegations, according to Career Education's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2013.
Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary
Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. Plaintiffs
filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of
California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013.
Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement
rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the
culinary school was competitive and that the school had an
excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service
providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-
regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers
eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school
provided graduates with career placement services for life. The
plaintiffs or putative class members here co-signed the loans for
students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class members.
Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties, and
attorneys' fees.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. Discovery is stayed pending a
ruling on those motions.
CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit in Ore. Stayed Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
All proceedings with the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in
and for Multnomah County in Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary
Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation have been stayed
pending the outcome of an appeal, according to Career Education's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2013.
Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career
Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in
Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in
and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.
and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint
individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims
for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for
money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege
that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved
to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that
motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the
Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part
of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on
omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and
denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at
WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who
dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic
reasons.
Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.
On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. WCI filed an
appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of
Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial
court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. Thus, all
proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.
CAREER EDUCATION: Consolidated "Vasquez" Suit Has 1047 Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently approximately 1,047 active plaintiffs in the
consolidated action Vasquez, et al. v. California School of
Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation, according to
Career Education's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2013.
Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation. On June 23, 2008, a putative class
action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court
entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School
of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. The
plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud,
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation
of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs
allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process
during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as
including "all persons who purchased educational services from
California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated
from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the
alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the
period following the filing of the action)." Defendants
successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim and the
Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully demurred to
plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of California's
former Private Postsecondary and Vocational Educational Reform Act
of 1989 ("the Reform Act"). Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was denied by the Court on March 6, 2012.
Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related
"multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of
approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of
Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary
Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et
al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al., v.
California School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School
of Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are
essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action
case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory
and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition
monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All
of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class
action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is
presiding over the Vasquez case.
On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez
action consolidating all eight of the separate actions.
Defendants' response to the consolidated complaint was filed on
July 13, 2012. The Court has lifted the stay on actions that were
consolidated and the parties are now engaged in discovery.
On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
of plaintiffs' claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the
motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine of those
individuals have filed arbitration demands before the American
Arbitration Association to date. One of those arbitrations has
been tried to a final award, and the remaining eight have settled.
The total liability for these nine arbitrations was an immaterial
amount.
Defendants issued offers to compromise pursuant to the California
Code of Civil Procedure to 1,438 individual plaintiffs, 346 of
which were accepted. The total amount that has been or will be
paid to eliminate these claims is approximately $2.1 million. This
aggregate amount was recorded in the third quarter of 2012 and the
majority of the payments were made by September 30, 2012. There
are currently approximately 1,047 active plaintiffs in the
consolidated action.
CAREER EDUCATION: Wants Rehearing of Ruling in "Wilson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has yet to rule
on the petition by the Career Education Corporation for rehearing
of a ruling reversing and remanding for further proceedings breach
of contract claim in Wilson, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, according to the company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2013.
Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. On August 11,
2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in
Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The two-count complaint asserts
claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from
the company's decision to terminate the company's admissions
representative Supplemental Compensation Plan. In addition to his
individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide
class of similarly situated Admissions Representatives who also
were affected by termination of the plan. On October 6, 2011, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13,
2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss in its
entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14,
2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the
final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on
October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012.
On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed
and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of
contract claim. On September 13, 2013, the company filed a
petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on
the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to
the Illinois Supreme Court. The Seventh Circuit has not ruled on
the company's petition.
CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Settlement in "Nimely" Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in Nimely, et al. v. Randstad General Partners,
Randstad USA, Randstad Inhouse Services L.P., and Career Education
Corporation reached an agreement to settle the matter, according
to Career Education's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2013.
Nimely, et al. v. Randstad General Partners, Randstad USA,
Randstad Inhouse Services L.P., and Career Education Corporation.
On December 30, 2012, April R. Nimely, a former hourly, non-exempt
call center employee based in Illinois filed a putative class and
collective action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company and various
entities of the staffing firm Randstad, which the Company used to
supplement its own staff at some of its call centers. The
complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act ("IWPCA") arising from the alleged failure to pay
wages for work performed before and after shifts and during
breaks. The putative collective class was defined as "[a]ll
persons who worked for Defendants as telephone dedicated
employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or in
full, on an hourly basis throughout the United States at any time
between December 30, 2009 and the present who did not receive the
full amount of overtime wages earned and owed to them."
On February 27, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the
complaint and motion to dismiss the IWPCA count of the complaint.
On June 14, 2013, plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification. The parties subsequently reached an agreement to
settle the matter for an immaterial amount and are in the process
of finalizing the settlement documents. A status hearing is
scheduled for November 8, 2013.
CAREER EDUCATION: "Vickers" Labor Suit Settlement Now Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida approved a settlement in the suit Sumrall and Tavares
Vickers, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, International
Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., d/b/a International
Academy of Design and Technology and d/b/a IADT-Online, according
to Career Education's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2013.
Sumrall and Tavares Vickers, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, International Academy of Merchandising & Design,
Inc., d/b/a International Academy of Design and Technology and
d/b/a IADT-Online. On April 25, 2013, a putative collection action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. Plaintiffs alleged a cause of action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime. Specifically,
plaintiffs alleged they were misclassified as exempt employees and
denied overtime compensation and/or required to work "off the
clock." The putative class was defined as including all admissions
representatives employed by the Company and International Academy
of Merchandising & Design, Inc., who worked in excess of forty
hours per week from April 25, 2010, to the present. Plaintiffs
sought to recover alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees, as well as declaratory
relief. On May 30, 2013, defendants filed their answer and
affirmative defenses, denying the plaintiffs' claims.
On July 31, 2013, the parties reached an agreement to settle this
matter, pursuant to which plaintiffs agreed to amend their
complaint to remove any reference to a purported collective
action, stipulate to the dismissal of the amended complaint, and
sign a full and complete release of all claims and potential
claims against the Company. In exchange, the Company agreed to pay
each plaintiff a de minimis amount in back wages, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees. The Court approved the settlement
and dismissed the amended complaint, with prejudice, on October 7,
2013.
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Discovery Proceeds in Lawsuit v. Subsidiary
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the suit Leathermon, et al. v.
Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., which is filed against
current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana,
including a subsidiary of Carriage Services, Inc., according to
Carriage Services' Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2013.
Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case
No. 4:07-cv-137. On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a
putative class action against the current and past owners of
Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana, including the company's
subsidiaries that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until
February 2001, on behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery
and burial goods and services at Grandview Cemetery. Plaintiffs
are seeking monetary damages and claim that the cemetery owners
performed burials negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts and
made misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs
also allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after the
company owned the cemetery. On October 15, 2007, the case was
removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the
Southern District of Indiana.
On April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been scheduled to
file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add
new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to
abandon other claims. The company, as well as several other
Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint
and add parties. In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify
Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this
action. On June 30, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel. In that order, the Court gave
Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain new counsel.
On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the
trial court's order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19,
2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus. On
July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for
writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order,
Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain
new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf.
Plaintiffs retained new counsel and the trial court granted the
newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel 90 days to review the case and
advise the Court whether or not Plaintiffs would seek leave to
amend their complaint to add and/or change the allegations as are
currently stated therein and whether or not they would seek leave
to amend the proposed class representatives for class
certification. Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend both the class
representatives and the allegations stated within the complaint.
Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments. The Court issued
an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the
class representatives and a portion of their claims; however,
certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed. Discovery in
this matter will now proceed.
COLUMBIA SOUTH: Deprived Workers of Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ibrahim Bektesevic v. Columbia South LLC, COSO 165-171 Manhattan
LLC, COSO 15 West 107 LLC, Gemstone Realty Partners LLC, Bluestar
Properties Inc., The Pinnacle Group N.Y. LLC, Kenneth Friedman,
Harry Tawil, Michael Aryeh, Jeffrey Pikus, Joel Weiner, John Does
#1-50, Jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00139-TPG
(S.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages and statutory penalties for notice-and-
recordkeeping violations. The Plaintiff was an hourly employee,
who worked as a building superintendent for the Defendants at two
buildings located in New York.
The Defendants have deprived him and his co-workers of minimum
wages and overtime pay since at least on January 9, 2011, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Mr. Bektesevic alleges.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene G. Eisner, Esq.
Benjamin N. Dictor, Esq.
EISNERS ASSOCIATES, P.C.
113 University Place, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 473-8700
E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com
ben@eisnerassociates.com
COSTA INC: Shareholders Suit Parties Must Confer Over Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three putative class action suits brought on behalf of similarly
situated shareholders of Costa, Inc. were consolidated as of
January 10, 2013:
CROSS LEDGE INVESTMENTS LLC, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
COSTA INC., RUSSELL A. BOSS, BERNARD V. BUONANNO, JR., DAVID G.
WHALEN, JACOB C. GAFFEY, DWAIN L. HAHS, HARLAN M. KENT, ANDREW J.
PARSONS, FRANCES P. PHILIP, ESSILOR INTERNATIONAL SA, and GWH
ACQUISITION SUB INC., Defendants.
JAMES HARASIN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
COSTA INC., DAVID G. WHALEN, RUSSELL A. BOSS, BERNARD V. BUONANNO,
JR., DWAIN L. HAHS, JACOB C. GAFFEY, ANDREW J. PARSONS, HARLAN M.
KENT, FRANCES P. PHILIP, ESSILOR INTERNATIONAL SA, and GWH
ACQUISITION SUB INC., Defendants.
EDWARD AND LYNN MARTINS, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
COSTA INC., GWH ACQUISITION SUB INC., RUSSELL A. BOSS, BERNARD V.
BUONANNO, JR., JACOB C. GAFFEY, DWAIN L. HAHS, HARLAN M. KENT,
ANDREW J. PARSONS, FRANCES P. PHILIP, DAVID G. WHALEN, Defendants,
C.A. NOS. PB13-5770 CONSOLIDATED WITH, PB13-5872 CONSOLIDATED,
PC13-5994 CONSOLIDATED.
The Court has been asked to limit expedited discovery and set a
preliminary injunction hearing date in the three suits to enjoin
the acquisition of publicly owned shares of Costa by Essilor
International SA.
The Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, found one of
the claims asserted by Plaintiffs to be a so-called colorable
claim for the purposes of determining whether to allow expedited
discovery. Accordingly, the Superior Court directed the parties
to meet and confer on the scope of what the Court expects will be
limited and targeted discovery.
A copy of the Superior Court's January 13, 2014 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/pVYdELfrom Leagle.com.
DOMESTIC DETAILING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Ariz. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Ivanoff v. Domestic Detailing, LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company; and Michael Antonucci and Jane Doe Antonucci,
husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-00041-MHB (D. Ariz., January 9,
2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful failure to pay
minimum wage in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and an equal
amount of liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys'
fees, and costs. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated
employees also request that, upon trial of this action, all issues
be submitted to and determined by a jury except those issues
expressly reserved by law for determination by the Court.
The Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work as a housekeeper in
their commercial housekeeping business.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John L. Collins, Esq.
Trey Dayes, Esq.
Dawn Sauer, Esq.
PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 258-8900
E-mail: johnc@phillipsdayeslaw.com
treyd@phillipslaw.com
dawns@phillipsdayeslaw.com
FACEBOOK INC: Nasdaq, Underwriters Challenge IPO Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge is expected to hear motions this month filed
by Nasdaq and the underwriters of Facebook Inc.'s botched initial
public offering challenging his rulings allowing a raft of
shareholder cases to proceed against them.
U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet of the Southern District of
New York in December refused to dismiss shareholder claims,
concluding that the underwriters failed to disclose enough about
Facebook's anticipated revenue decreases and that Nasdaq was not
immune from liability over technical glitches that occurred that
day.
Nasdaq and the underwriters have moved to certify his orders for
interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
Lawyers for the shareholders have opposed the defendants' motions.
Judge Sweet has scheduled hearings on those motions for Feb. 4 and
Feb. 5.
In a joint motion, lawyers for the Facebook defendants and
underwriters wrote that Judge Sweet's unprecedented ruling was
inconsistent with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules
and would have "widespread and unsettling effects on the capital
markets."
Andrew Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- a New York partner
at Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis who represents the Facebook
defendants, and James Rouhandeh -- rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- head
of the litigation department at New York's Davis Polk & Wardwell,
for the underwriters, didn't respond to a request for comment.
In a separate motion, Nasdaq attorney Stephen Kastenberg --
kastenberg@ballardspahr.com -- a partner at Philadelphia-based
Ballard Spahr, called the dispute "an exceptional case that
presents important questions regarding the potential liability of
a national securities exchange."
Mr. Kastenberg didn't respond to a request for comment.
On May 8, 2012, Facebook's public offering price of $38 per share
plummeted soon after its debut, causing millions of dollars in
investor losses. The exchange has paid $72 million to the SEC and
member companies over its handling of the IPO.
FEDEX GROUND: Obtains Initial Approval of DeCesare Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lloyd D. George granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in the case captioned MICHAEL DECESARE, MICHAEL MENO,
MICHAEL KING, ROBERT GIBSON, IV, JAMES B. TALLEY, LELAND AKMAL,
BENJAMIN FERRELL, MICHAEL ODEN, BRAD SMITH, JOSE COBOS, RUBEN
PANGILINAN, WILLIAM MARSELLOS, RICKY BATTS, and MARLON CANAS,
Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., and DOES I-XX,
Defendants, CASE NO. 2:07-CV-00098-LDG-GWF, (D. Nev.).
The Court designated Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator and directed Rust to perform each and every one of
the functions listed in the Settlement Agreement. FXG will pay all
Administration Expenses, in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
The Final Claims Date, in order to meet the requirements for the
submission of a Valid Claim under the Settlement Agreement, is
March 11, 2014.
The Fairness Hearing will be held before the United States
District Court, District of Nevada, on May 5, 2014 at 10:00
a./p.m. before the Court in Courtroom 6B of the United States
Courthouse, at 333 S. Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 to
determine: (1) whether the terms of the Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the action
should be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice; and (3)
whether Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses,
and incentive awards for the individuals who brought this action,
should be approved.
A copy of the District Court's January 7, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/DbfTnmfrom Leagle.com.
FIRST MED: Employees File Class Action Over Lack of Layoff Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Bozick, writing for TidewaterBiz, reports that hundreds of
other employees abruptly lost their jobs without notice when
First Med EMS shut down. They now plan to participate in a
class-action lawsuit filed shortly after First Med filed for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation on Dec. 11. On behalf of all
affected employees, three former employees filed a complaint
seeking two months of wages, accrued vacation time and benefits
compensation for the 60 days of notice that federal law known as
The Warn Act typically requires for a mass layoff.
John Rosenbaum was named as a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit
against First Med, an ambulance company that abruptly laid off all
its employees, including 250 in Hampton Roads.
On Dec. 6-7, roughly 2,000 First Med EMS employees in six
States -- and about 250 in Hampton Roads -- were told by their
supervisors or learned in last-minute teleconferences that the
company was out of money and they no longer had jobs.
In a letter sent from First Med Chief Financial Officer
Shawn Heming to Peninsula employees, he explains that while the
company was attempting to obtain more investment or money to
continue operating, its lenders chose not to extend funding. The
letter then says giving notice of a layoff would have hurt its
chances at finding funding. The Warn Act lists exceptions for
giving a 60-day notice, including a closure where the employer had
been seeking capital.
First Med is majority owned by New York-based Enhanced Equity
Funds, according to the complaint. The health care-focused
private equity firm controlled several companies operating under
the First Med name and corporate shell, Ambulance Holdings LLC.
They included Eastern Shore Acquisition Corp., MarMac
Transportation Services Inc. on the Peninsula and Middle
Peninsula, Eastern Shore Ambulance Inc., TransMed, Coastline Care
Inc. and Ohio-based American Ambulette and Ambulance Service.
First Med also operated in West Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Kentucky.
The class-action lawsuit against the same ambulance service
companies has become snared in the bankruptcy process, which could
take a couple years to get through. Even so, John Rosenbaum, who
had been an operations director for Eastern Shore's Portsmouth
office and had worked for the company for four years, is keeping a
close eye on any developments, which he then shares with other
former employees.
When he heard two First Med employees in Ohio were filing a class-
action lawsuit, he wanted to make sure workers in Hampton Roads
were represented and asked to be named as a plaintiff. He's spent
25 hours working with lawyers in the case and attended the first
creditors' hearing in Wilmington, N.C., the state where the
bankruptcy was filed.
Attorney Jack Raisner of the Outten & Golden law firm in New York
said the class-action case is not on hold although it's being
handled as part of the bankruptcy case. He's in contact with the
trustee in the case. The First Med entities have not yet filed a
response in court to the lawsuit, but typically that could take
months. The bankruptcy trustee, the company's attorney and
Enhanced Equity Funds have not returned phone calls or emails.
Mr. Raisner said hundreds of employees have contacted him wanting
to participate in the class-action suit.
FELTEX: Court Orders $1MM Payment in Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Thompson, writing for NewstalkZB, reports that the lawyer
representing around 3000 investors in a class action against
collapsed carpet manufacturing company Feltex says they have had
the money to go ahead with the case for some time.
The High Court in Wellington had ordered the payment of $1 million
into a trust account by the end of business on Jan. 31. It's part
of a $2 million payment in security incase the investors' case
fails.
Austin Forbes QC says they were waiting on clarification about
where to pay the money.
A hearing into the case is set for March 17.
Investors are $250 million out of pocket. They claim directors of
Feltex made false amid misleading statements in documents relating
to the company's public float.
FUKUDA TRADING: Recalls Macaroni, Noodles Due to Undeclared Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 20, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert
Subcategory: Allergen - Wheat, Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Fukuda Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 8558
Affected products:
Brand name Common name Size UPC
---------- ----------- ---- ----
Knorr Quick Serve Macaroni 80 g 4 898828 051115
- Wonton Broth
Knorr Quick Serve Macaroni 80 g 4 898828 052648
- Japanese Pork Bone
Broth Flavor
Knorr Quick Serve Macaroni 80 g 4 898828 052815
- Abalone & Chicken
Flavor
Knorr Quick Serve Macaroni 80 g 4 898828 051313
- Shrimp Broth
New Touch Yakisoba Noodle 127 g 4 903088 008882
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 39,300 Sierra and Silverado Trucks
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 13, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 39312
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2014005
TC ID number: 2014005
Manufacturer recall
number: 14008
On certain 1500 series vehicles equipped with 4.3L and 5.3L
engines, exhaust components may overheat while the vehicle is
idling in cold temperatures. This could cause nearby plastic
components to overheat and melt, possibly resulting in smoke
and/or fire and increasing the risk of injury and/or damage to
property.
Dealers will reprogram the engine control module.
Affected products:
Maker Model Model year(s) affected
----- ----- ----------------------
GMC SIERRA 2014
CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2014
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Custom Aluminum" Suit Transferred to New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Custom Aluminum Products, Inc. v.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-13418, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00134-KBF to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges violations of antitrust laws.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold Z. Gurewitz, Esq.
GUREWITZ & RABEN, PLC
333 W. Fort Street, Suite 1400
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 628-4733
Facsimile: (313) 628-4701
E-mail: hgurewitz@grplc.com
- and -
James J. Sabella, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. (NY)
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
Wilmington, DE 19801-2599
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. (NY)
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com
- and -
Craig M. Essenmacher, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
162 E. Main Street
Northville, MI 48167
Telephone: (248) 615-1752
Facsimile: (248) 928-0909
E-mail: cessenmacher@lshllp.com
The Defendants are represented:
Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
350 South Main Street, Suite 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 222-1506
Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com
- and -
William H. Horton, Esq.
GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C.
101 West Big Beaver Road, 10th Floor
Troy, MI 48084-5280
Telephone: (248) 457-7000
Facsimile: (248) 457-7001
E-mail: bhorton@gmhlaw.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Everett" Antitrust Suit Transferred to New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Everett Aluminum Inc. v. Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-12972, was transferred
from the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00129-KBF to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities, who
purchased primary aluminum on the spot market in the United States
from February 1, 2010, through the present at prices linked to or
explicitly incorporating London Metal Exchange prices, including
the Platts MW US Transaction Premium price and the Platts MW US
net-cash premium. Everett Aluminum alleges that the Defendants
have illegally manipulated and restrained aluminum supplies
through their monopolistic control and influence over the
commodity warehousing business for aluminum with the intent to
artificially inflate the price of aluminum sold both on the LME
and in the spot market.
Plaintiff Everett Aluminum, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation
based in Everett, Massachusetts.
Based in New York, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is a leading global
investment banking, securities and investment management firm that
provides a wide range of financial services to a substantial and
diversified client base that includes corporations, financial
institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
Richard Kirchner, Esq.
Fran Whitaker, Esq.
Lisa Sleboda, Esq.
BONSIGNORE, LLC
193 Plummer Hill Road
Belmont, NH 03220
Telephone: (781) 856-7650
E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us
- and -
Guido Saveri, Esq.
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-6810
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
E-mail: guido@saveri.com
rick@saveri.com
cadio@saveri.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert D. Wick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P. (DC)
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 662-5487
Facsimile: (202) 778-5487
E-mail: rwick@cov.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Int'l Extrusions" Suit Transferred to New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled International
Extrusions, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:13-cv-13555, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00135-KBF
to the proceeding.
The case alleges violations of antitrust laws.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold Z. Gurewitz, Esq.
GUREWITZ & RABEN, PLC
333 W. Fort Street, Suite 1400
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 628-4733
Facsimile: (313) 628-4701
E-mail: hgurewitz@grplc.com
- and -
James J. Sabella, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
Wilmington, DE 19801-2599
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. (NY)
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com
- and -
Craig M. Essenmacher, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
162 E. Main Street
Northville, MI 48167
Telephone: (248) 615-1752
Facsimile: (248) 928-0909
E-mail: cessenmacher@lshllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
350 South Main Street, Suite 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 222-1506
Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com
- and -
William H. Horton, Esq.
GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C.
101 West Big Beaver Road, 10th Floor
Troy, MI 48084-5280
Telephone: (248) 457-7000
Facsimile: (248) 457-7001
E-mail: bhorton@gmhlaw.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Pierce" Antitrust Suit Transferred to New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Pierce Aluminum Company, Inc.
v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-12746, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00132-KBF to the proceeding.
The case alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act relating
to aluminum. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants conspired
or engaged in concerted action in restraint of trade. The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendants monopolized, attempted to
monopolize or conspired to monopolize the market for LME-warranted
aluminum. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants conspired to
restrain the supply or reduce the output of LME-warranted
aluminum.
New York-based Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a global investment
banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a
wide range of financial services to a substantial and diversified
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net-worth individuals.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, CROSS AND MANDELCORN, LLP
110 Cedar St.
Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
Telephone: (781) 431-2231
Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin M. McGovern, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
10 St. James Avenue, Suite 12
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 619-9276
Facsimile: (617) 523-6850
E-mail: benjamin.mcgovern@hklaw.com
- and -
Robert D. Wick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P. (DC)
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 662-5487
Facsimile: (202) 778-5487
E-mail: rwick@cov.com
HOPKINS COUNTY: Court Dismisses "Conway" Suit Against Jail
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., dismissed the case
captioned JESSIE CONWAY, Plaintiff, v. HOPKINS COUNTY JAIL et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13CV-P62-M, (W.D. Ky.) for lack of
prosecution.
The Court had denied Plaintiff's requests for class-action status
and to add exhibits to the record on November 14, 2013, and
provided him with 30 days to file a motion to supplement. On
November 26, 2013, the U.S. Postal Service returned Plaintiff's
copy of the Order to the Court. The envelope was marked "Return to
Sender" and "Not Deliverable as Addressed-Unable to Forward."
"Apparently, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Hopkins
County Jail, his address of record . . . Because it appears to
this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in
prosecuting this case, the Court will dismiss the action," ruled
Judge McKinley.
A copy of the District Court's January 14, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/BOJ5Jifrom Leagle.com.
HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Blade 500 X Remote Controlled Helicopters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2014
Posting date: January 28, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Suspected quality concern
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37741
Affected products: Blade 500 X BNF and 500 3D RTF and BNF Remote
Controlled Model Helicopters
The recall involves the tail rotor grips of the Blade 500 X BNF,
the 500 3D RTF and the BNF Remote Controlled Model Helicopters.
They can be identified by the model numbers: BLH4080, BLH1800,
BLH1850 and BLH1800M1.
The helicopters are about 85 centimeters long, 30 centimetres tall
and weigh about 4 lbs. The tail rotor grip for each model is a
black plastic holder that holds the tail rotor blades of the
helicopter in place. The grips are approximately 3.2 centimeters
tall and 1.3 centimeters wide.
The tail rotor blade grip may fail causing the helicopter to crash
and may cause injury.
Horizon Hobby, Inc. has received 4 reports of the tail rotor blade
grip failing. No injuries were reported.
Health Canada has not received any reports of injuries related to
the use of this helicopter.
Approximately 196 units of the recalled helicopters were sold at
hobby stores across Canada while approximately 1787 units of the
recalled helicopters were sold in the United States.
The Blade 550 X and 500 3D with model numbers BLH1800, BLH1800M1,
BLH1850 were sold from December 2012 to September 2013. Blade 500
X and 500 3D with model numbers BLH4080 and BLH1850 were sold from
May 2013 to September 2013.
Companies:
Manufacturer Shenzen Shen's Tongchuang Aeronautic
Model Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen
China
Distributor Horizon Hobby, Inc.
Champaign
Illinois
United States
Customers should immediately stop using the helicopters and
contact Horizon Hobby for a replacement blade grip along with
instructions for replacement.
KING CANADA: Recalls Spray-Coat Aerosol Product
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 24, 2014
Posting date: January 24, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37703
Affected products: King Canada Inc. Spray-Coat Aerosol Product
The recall involves King Canada Inc. Spray Coat aerosol product.
The recalled products can be identified by model number KM-040 and
UPC 7 72995 00214 6. Date codes affected are between March 1,
2012 and Dec. 31, 2013. The date code is stamped on the underside
of the cans and is written in the format of m/d/y, for example
1/23/13 is January 23, 2013.
The recalled products do not have the mandatory labelling for
consumer chemical products under Canadian Law.
These consumer chemical products do not have the proper hazard
labelling required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers
Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
Improper labelling information may lead to serious injuries.
Neither Health Canada, nor King Canada Inc. has received any
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these products.
Approximately 1,800 cans of the recalled products were sold in
Canada.
The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
from March 2012 to December 2013.
Companies:
Distributor Outillages King Canada Inc.
Dorval
Quebec
Canada
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product.
Products can be returned to the store where they were purchased
for either the application of a compliant label onto the product
or an exchange of the recalled product for a replacement one with
the correct label.
L'AUBAINERIE: Recalls TAG and RIDER Children's Outerwear
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 23, 2014
Posting date: January 23, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37689
Affected products: TAG and RIDER brands children's outerwear with
neck drawstring sold exclusively at L'Aubainerie stores
The recall involves these products:
-- TAG brand fleece cardigan, style number TGF3042811, with a
front zipper and shearling-style lining on the hood. A date
code of July 2013 is indicated on the garment.
-- RIDER brand lightweight sweater with stripes, long sleeves
and hood, for boys ages 7-14, style number TG3U504142411. A
date code of July 2013 is indicated on the garment.
Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that drawstrings on children's outerwear can become caught on
playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in
strangulation, or in the case of vehicles, in the child being
dragged.
Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of this product.
Approximately 3,144 products were sold in Canada.
The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold
from July 2013 to January 2014 at L'Aubainerie stores.
Companies:
Importer Groupe Boyz Inc.
Montreal
Quebec
Canada
Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
garment to eliminate the hazard.
LADENBURG THALMANN: Stock Suit Stayed After FriendFinder's Ch. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities suit filed against action FriendFinder Networks, Inc.
("FriendFinder"), and Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc.
has been stayed after FriendFinder filed a voluntary petition,
according to Ladenburg's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2013.
In December 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
FriendFinder Networks, Inc. ("FriendFinder"), various individuals,
Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters for the May
11, 2011 FriendFinder initial public offering. On June 20, 2013,
the plaintiff filed its second amended complaint, alleging that
the defendants, including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of
federal securities laws. The amended complaint does not specify
the amount of damages sought. The defendants' motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint is currently pending. On September
17, 2013, FriendFinder filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in federal bankruptcy court in
Delaware. As a result, action in the case has been stayed. The
Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against them.
LADENBURG THALMANN: Removes Suit Over WEMU Shares Sale to ND Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. removed a securities
suit involving the public offering of Worldwide Energy &
Manufacturing, Inc., securities to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to Ladenburg's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2013.
In December 2012, a purported class action suit was filed in the
Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against
Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. ("WEMU"), certain
individuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent for a 2010 offering
of WEMU securities. The complaint alleges that the defendants,
including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of state securities
laws, and does not specify the amount of damages sought. On April
26, 2013, Ladenburg filed a demurrer, which is pending. On July 5,
2013, WEMU filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in federal bankruptcy court in Colorado. On July
9, 2013, Ladenburg removed the purported class action suit to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California;
cross-motions to remand, transfer and/or stay the suit are
currently pending. The Company believes the claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
LONG ISLAND POWER: Judge Hears Motion to Dismiss Sandy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that A New York state court judge heard
argument on a motion to dismiss claims by a consolidated class of
plaintiffs who sued Long Island Power Authority for their
allegedly negligent handling of power outages caused by Superstorm
Sandy.
Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Antonio I. Brandveen took the
motion under consideration following oral argument Jan. 28 and did
not provide a timeline for issuing his decision on LIPA's argument
that the case is unsuitable for treatment as a class action.
MCCREA EQUIPMENT: Sued by HVAC Technicians Over FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Athey, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, 31 Marion Street, Cumberland, MD 21502 v. McCrea
Equipment Company, Inc., 151 Commerce Ave., Greencastle, PA 17225,
and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-00122-JD (E.D. Pa.,
January 9, 2014) seeks to redress the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated HVAC Technicians proper overtime compensation
in violation of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff worked for McCrea Equipment Company, Inc. at its
facility in Greencastle, Pennsylvania. McCrea operates at least
one facility in Pennsylvania. The Doe Defendants are presently
unknown persons.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
rswartz@swartz-legal.com
MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls Remington Mighty Sweep Electric Blower
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 27, 2014
Posting date: January 27, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Laceration Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37711
Affected products: Remington Mighty Sweep RM180B hand held
electric blower
The recall involves the Remington Mighty Sweep RM180B hand held
electric blower identified by model number 41AA180G983. The
blowers have a 12 digit serial number printed on a white label on
the bottom of the blower. The serial numbers of the 13 affected
blowers begin with either S1A182XK or S1G071XK.
The blower is black in color with labeling that is black, orange
and white.
This product is being recalled because the resin impeller can
break and hit the operator of the unit posing a laceration hazard.
Neither Health Canada nor MTD Products Inc. has received any
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of this electric blower.
Approximately 13 units of the recalled blowers were sold at Co-op
Atlantic stores in Canada.
The recalled blowers were manufactured in China and sold from
July 1, 2011 to Nov. 25, 2013 in Canada.
Companies:
Manufacturer KingClean Electric Co., Ltd.
China
Importer MTD Products Inc.
Kitchener
Ontario
Canada
Consumers should immediately stop using the blower, write down the
serial number and contact Remington customer service. A Remington
Customer Service Representative will be able to tell you if you
have an affected blower or not; and if you do, how to obtain a
free replacement.
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Stop-and-Frisk Litigation
-----------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton
announced an accord to settle stop-and-frisk litigation on
Jan. 30, vowing to follow through on reforming police department
policies and to keep a court-appointed monitor on the job.
The announcement came at a press conference held at the
Brownsville Recreation Center. In 2012, the 73rd Precinct had the
highest percentage of stops per population of any precinct in the
city.
Mr. De Blasio, Mr. Bratton and Corporation Counsel Zachary Carter
pledged to pursue changes in stop-and-frisk policies found
unconstitutional by Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin on
Feb. 14 and Aug. 12, 2013, including her decision to appoint
Peter Zimroth of Arnold & Porter as a police department monitor.
In a complete turn-around from the dogged opposition to stop-and-
frisk litigation by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police
Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Mr. de Blasio said, we "accept the
facts and road map laid out" in Judge Scheindlin's "landmark
ruling" in Floyd v. City of New York, 13-3088, including her
finding that stop-and-frisk policies "unfairly targeted young
African-American and Latino men."
Mr. De Blasio said the monitor would be in place for three years.
Once "the agreement is ratified" by Southern District Judge
Analisa Torres, Mr. de Blasio said, the Corporation Counsel would
drop its appeal of Judge Scheindlin's rulings in Floyd and a
second case over policing outside of private buildings in the
Bronx.
Mr. Carter, invoking Martin Luther King, said the city was
reaffirming King's commitment by ensuring that "no law-abiding
citizen should fear the intrusion of law enforcement simply
because of the color of their skin."
He said the next three years would be spent developing "policies,
procedures and training to ensure that inappropriate
considerations of race will not be a determinative factor in
police decision making."
The reforms that are expected to take place include improved
training and training materials, oversight of officers on the
street and messages on police department policies broadcast by
supervisors.
Judge Scheindlin's rulings were stayed on Oct. 31 by a three-judge
motions panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
which also removed her as presiding judge for giving the
appearance of partiality in press interviews during trial in the
Floyd case.
But it was already apparent that de Mr. Blasio, who ran against
stop-and-frisk, was about to be elected mayor.
The motions panel then rejected a move by Corporation Counsel
Michael Cardozo to vacate Judge Scheindlin's rulings on Nov. 21.
The full court followed on Nov. 25 by placing the entire matter in
"abeyance," including requests for en banc review by both the
plaintiffs and lawyers for Judge Scheindlin who said the motions
panel was out of line for removing her from the case. The full
circuit invited the parties to seek a remand for purposes of
resolving the cases.
The city accepted that invitation on Jan. 30, as Acting
Corporation Counsel Jeffrey Friedlander and Assistant Corporation
Counsel Deborah Brenner, filed a motion for a limited remand with
the Second Circuit for 45 days "to permit the parties to explore a
resolution" in Floyd and a second case, Ligon v. City of New York,
13-3123.
The police department had already begun a substantial easing back
of stop-and-frisk by the time the parties were gearing up for
trial in Floyd in 2013 as the quarterly statistics on the number
of stop-and-frisk encounters as reported to the City Council
showed a dramatic drop.
The numbers had continued to drop even as the city was arguing
before a Second Circuit motions panel for a stay of Judge
Scheindlin's rulings.
The total number of stop-and-frisk reports filed by police for
2013 was about 194,000, less than one third the encounters
reported by police during the peak of the program. There were
694,000 encounters in 2011 and 532,911 in 2012.
By the middle of January, Bratton said, "The problem has been
more-or-less solved" and Mr. de Blasio said reform was underway.
Mr. Bratton addressed one question on Jan. 30 on an idea raised by
Judge Scheindlin during Floyd and included in her remedial order
-- a pilot program in which officers in one precinct per borough
would wear body cameras to record police encounters for one year.
Mr. Bratton said, "American policing is moving very quickly in
that direction."
Vincent Warren, executive director for the Center for
Constitutional Rights, whose lawyers served as co-counsel in
Floyd, said the agreement marked "a significant day in the fight
for accountability" and "the legal questions have now been
settled."
Donna Lieberman, direcor of the New York Civil Liberties Union,
whose lawyers led the way in Ligon, said "We all know that change
starts with the message from the top" and "we believe in the good
will and good intentions of the new administration."
Two separate groups of police unions moved to intervene in the
appeal in September in the hopes of carrying the appeal forward
should a new administration elect to pull the plug.
Their motions were also held in abeyance by the full court. On
Jan. 30, the circuit issued an order asking that they submit their
views on the consent remand by Feb.7, with the parties in the case
to reply by Feb. 14.
NONG SHIM CO: Accused of Fixing Prices of Korean Noodles in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diaz Wholesale & Manufacturing Co., Inc. d/b/a Diaz Foods, on
Behalf of Itself and a Class of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Nong Shim Company, Ltd.; Nongshim America, Inc.; Ottogi Company,
Ltd; Ottogi America, Inc.; Samyang Foods Company, Ltd.; Sam Yang
(USA), Inc.; Paldo Company, Ltd.; and Korea Yakultco. Ltd., Case
No. 4:14-cv-00127-SBA (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) is brought on
behalf of a Class consisting of all persons and entities, who
directly purchased Korean Noodles from the Defendants in the
United States from May 2001 to the present.
According to the complaint, the action arises out of a long-
running conspiracy among the Defendants to agree, combine and
conspire to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which
Korean Noodles were sold in the U.S. and elsewhere. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy resulted in
increased prices for Korean Noodles sold in the United States and
its territories.
Nong Shim Co. Ltd., established in 1965, is organized and existing
under the laws of South Korea headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.
Nong Shim Co. Ltd. is a leading food company in South Korea, and
has had a high market share in Korea since the 1990s and, since
2010, represents approximately 70% of the Korean Noodles business
in Korea.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Guido Saveri, Esq.
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
Travis L. Manfredi, Esq.
SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
706 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 217-6810
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
E-mail: guido@saveri.com
rick@saveri.com
cadio@saveri.com
travis@saveri.com
- and -
Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
William H. London, Esq.
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4510
E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
wlondon@fklmlaw.com
dmillen@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
bcaldes@srkw-law.com
jjagher@srkw-law.com
jspector@srkw-law.com
- and -
Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Telephone: (612) 338-4605
E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
rsteiner@heinsmills.com
NOVARTIS AG: Accused of Selling Excedrin Migraine at Higher Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefanie Anthony and Susan Seidita, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals v. Novartis AG, Novartis
Corporation, and, Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., Case No. 2:14-
cv-00161-ADS-WDW (E.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) arises out of
Novartis' sale of Excedrin Migraine at a higher price than the
pharmacologically identical product Excedrin Extra Strength.
The Defendants' conduct has harmed consumers, who paid more for
Excedrin Migraine than they would have paid for Excedrin Extra
Strength, the Plaintiffs contend.
Novartis AG, the parent company of the Novartis group of entities,
is a multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Basel,
Switzerland. Novartis Corporation is a New York corporation based
in East Hanover, New Jersey. Novartis Corporation is the U.S. arm
of Novartis AG and oversees research and development,
manufacturing, sales and marketing of pharmaceutical products,
including Excedrin Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength. Novartis
Consumer Health, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Parsippany, New Jersey. Novartis Consumer Health engages in
research and development, manufacturing, sales and marketing of
over-the-counter pharmaceutical products, including Excedrin
Migraine and Excedrin Extra Strength.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
BAKER SANDERS, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 741-4799
Facsimile: (516) 741-3777
E-mail: tmuhlstock@bakersanders.com
- and -
Eric Gibbs, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: ehg@GirardGibbs.com
NU SKIN: Block & Leviton Files Class Action in Utah
---------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a Boston-based law firm representing
investors nationwide, along with Salt Lake City attorney Charles
Conrad, on Jan. 29 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., and certain of its
officers. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court of Utah
and is captioned Zapata v. Nu Skin Enterprises Inc., 2:14-cv-
00062.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who
purchased or acquired NuSkin securities -- including common stock,
bonds, call options or who sold put options -- between July 10,
2013 through January 14, 2014. To join the litigation, or if you
have questions regarding your rights or have information relevant
to the claims, please contact Attorney Steven Harte of Block &
Leviton at (617) 398-5600 or steven@blockesq.com
You can also speak with Attorney Charles Conrad at 801-533-0400 or
cconrad@dkolaw.com
The complaint asserts that NuSkin made false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the Company's internal
controls, accounting, and the legality of its sales practices.
These statements are alleged to have been false and misleading
when made because: (i) the Company was suffering from grossly
deficient internal controls and therefore was susceptible to fraud
and violations of the law; (ii) Defendants failed to disclose that
their Chinese sales violated Chinese law, and instead touted China
as an important sales region for NuSkin's activities; and (iii)
that the Company's financial statements were inaccurate in
numerous material respects. The alleged fraud was discovered when
the Chinese government announced it was investigating NuSkin as a
Ponzi scheme and alleged other purportedly illegal practices at
the Company. Once the misleading statements were revealed to the
market, the Company's stock plummeted 44% in just two days of
trading.
If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than March 22,
2014, request that the court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
Class. You may contact the attorneys at Block & Leviton to
discuss your rights in the case. You may also retain counsel of
your choice and you need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.
PACCAR: Recalls 118 Trucks Due to Damaged Converters
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 24, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 118
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2014021
TC ID number: 2014021
Manufacturer recall
number: 14KWD/1213J
On certain vehicles equipped with Sure Power battery equalizers
and/or convertors, the equalizer and/or convertor could develop an
internal short circuit, resulting in a risk of overheating, smoke
and/or fire. This may result in property damage and/or personal
injury.
Delaers will replace affected converters and/or equalizers.
Affected products:
Maker Model Model year(s) affected
----- ----- ----------------------
PETERBILT 210 2012, 2013, 2014
PETERBILT 220 2012, 2013, 2014
KENWORTH K300 2012, 2013, 2014
PLASTI-DIP: Recalls U.S. Versions of Coating Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2014
Posting date: January 28, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37447
Affected products: All U.S. versions of Plasti-dip Spray in
Aerosol Cans, Create Your Color kits, and in larger formats sold
by gallons quantities.
Plasti-Dip is a rubbery protective coating that can be used in a
wide range of industrial applications and applies easily by
dipping, brushing or spraying. Plasti-Dip Spray is available in
11 oz. aerosol cans, 1 and 5 gallon containers, and in "Create
Your Color" kits, which are 22 oz cans of Clear Plasti-Dip rubber
coating with five specially formulated tints for the consumer to
create their own colors.
These Plasti Dip aerosol cans are subject to the recall:
-- Plasti-Dip Black,
-- Plasti-Dip Blaze,
-- Plasti-Dip Camo,
-- Plasti-Dip Enhancers,
-- Plasti-Dip Glossifier,
-- Plasti-Dip Metalizer,
-- Plasti-Dip Pearlizer,
-- Plasti-Dip Primer,
-- Plasti-Dip Smoke.
These larger formats of Plasti Dip are subject to the recall:
-- Rubber Dip Spray in 1 and 5 gallons sizes,
-- 2 Gallon Bundle 1 Color Rubber Dip Spray,
-- Professional Large Car / Extra Coverage Kit in 4 gallons
sizes.
Canadian labelled versions of the Plasti-Dip products, sold
through Paisley Products, the Canadian distributor of Plasti-Dip
products, are NOT affected by this recall.
These consumer chemical products do not have the proper hazard
labelling required by the Consumer Chemical and Containers
Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
Improper labelling information may lead to serious injuries.
Neither Health Canada nor Paisley Products have received any
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.
An unknown number of the recalled products were sold in retail
stores and online sources across Canada.
These products were manufactured in the United States and have
been sold in Canada for at least five years.
Companies:
Retailer Various importers, retailers and online sources
Consumers should stop using the products and contact your original
place of purchase for any additional information. Consumers who
cannot or who do not wish to contact the original place of
purchase should dispose of the recalled products as per Municipal
Hazardous Waste Guidelines. Alternatively, consumers may wish to
contact the Canadian distributor of Plasti-Dip products for an
exchange:
REEBOK-CCM: Recalls EP20K Senior (SR) Elbow Pads
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2014
Posting date: January 28, 2014
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-37609
Affected products: Reebok-CCM EP20K Senior (SR) Elbow Pads
The recall involves Reebok-CCM EP20K Senior (SR) elbow pads which
contain all-foam hockey elbow caps. The pads are black, grey and
white in color and have words "Reebok" and "20K PRO" printed on
them. The product model code is located on the outside of the
polybag in which the product may be sold at retail and on the
inside label of each elbow pad.
These elbow pads are included in the recall:
Product model code Size UPC
------------------ ---- ---
K101 SR EP20K S-Reebok EP 20K Small 886832519312
K101 SR EP20K M-Reebok EP 20K Medium 886832500303
K101 SR EP20K L-Reebok EP 20K Large 886832462199
K101 SR EP20K X-L-Reebok EP 20K X-Large 886832500310
The affected product can fracture or split in the foam padding
resulting in a failure to provide sufficient protection to the
elbow.
Reebok-CCM Hockey Inc. received one report of an incident in
Canada which resulted in a broken elbow and no incidents in the
United States.
Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of this product.
Approximately 1,600 units of the recalled elbow pads were
distributed in Canada and approximately 2,100 units in the United
States.
The recalled elbow pads were manufactured in China and sold
between April 2013 and November 2013 in Canada and the United
States.
Companies:
Manufacturer Reebok-CCM Hockey Inc.
Montreal
Quebec
Canada
Consumers should stop using the recalled elbow pads immediately
and return them to the place of purchase to receive a refund or a
replacement product.
SALCOR INC: "Levy" Suit Removed to Washington District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit captioned Levy v. Salcor, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 13-00002-02595-9, was removed from the Kitsap
County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Tacoma). The Washington District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-05022 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts product liability claims.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Thomas, Esq.
Mark A. Wilner, Esq.
GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4000
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 467-6477
Facsimile: (206) 467-6292
E-mail: jthomas@gordontilden.com
mwilner@gordontilden.com
- and -
John David Stahl, Esq.
MUNDT MACGREGOR
271 Wyatt Way NE, Suite 106
Bainbridge Is, WA 98110
Telephone: (206) 624-5950
E-mail: jdstahl@mundtmac.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Edward Scoville, Esq.
Austin M. Rainwater, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-3487
E-mail: mscoville@perkinscoie.com
ARainwater@perkinscoie.com
SOUTH DAKOTA: Judge Allows Foster Care Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denise DePaolo, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
lawsuit from two tribes accusing South Dakota of routinely
violating the federal law governing foster care and adoptions for
American Indian children can proceed as a class-action case.
According to court documents, a Rapid City judge on Jan. 28
refused to dismiss the lawsuit and ruled that parts of it can
proceed at an expedited pace and as a class-action case.
The Oglala Sioux and Rosebud Sioux tribes and three Indian parents
filed the lawsuit last year. It names South Dakota Social
Services Secretary Kim Malsam-Rysdon and employee LuAnn Van
Hunnik, Pennington County State's Attorney Mark Vargo and 7th
Judicial Circuit Court Presiding Judge Jeff Davis. It alleges the
state is violating the Indian Child Welfare Act by holding
improper hearings after children are removed from homes.
SPRINT NEXTEL: "Bennett" Securities Suit in Discovery Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the securities suit Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp. pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas, according to Sprint's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2013.
In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its
former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff seeks class
action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock
from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008. On January 6, 2011,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Subsequently, its motion
to certify the January 6, 2011 order for an interlocutory appeal
was denied, and discovery is continuing. The plaintiff moved to
certify a class of bondholders as well as owners of common stock,
and Sprint Communications has opposed that motion. Sprint
Communications believes the complaint is without merit and intend
to continue to defend the matter vigorously.
STATE FARM: Sends Out Unsolicited Fax Advertisements, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saf-T-Gard International, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00144 (N.D. Ill., January 9,
2014) is brought to secure redress for the alleged actions of the
Defendant in sending out unsolicited advertisements to telephone
facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that it did not give the Defendant prior
express invitation or permission to send advertisements to it
within 18 months of receipt of the fax.
Saf-T-Gard is a domestic corporation located in Illinois where it
maintains telephone facsimile equipment. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company is an Illinois mutual insurance
company that is headquartered in Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
Timothy Sostrin, Esq.
Katherine Bowen, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
Chicago, Il 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
tsostrin@keoghlaw.com
kbowen@keoghlaw.com
TARGET CORP: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Data Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Alvarez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00129-JCS (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) arises
from the security breach at Target stores.
Mr. Alvarez alleges that Target was aware of an ongoing security
breach at the time Class members used debit or credit cards to
make purchases at Target stores; however, the Company
intentionally failed to disclose the ongoing security breach at
that time.
Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Minnesota. Target
is one of the largest retailers in the United States, operating
over 1,700 stores in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darryl A. Stallworth, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYL A. STALLWORTH
2355 Broadway, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 271-1900
Facsimile: (510) 271-1902
E-mail: dstallworth@your-defense.com
TIFFIN: Recalls 8 Allegro Motorhomes Over Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 21, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 8
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2014011
TC ID number: 2014011
On certain motorhomes equipped with electric fireplaces, wood
could be exposed to the fireplace heat vent, which could result in
a fire and increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property.
Dealers will install a heat shield.
Affected products: 2013, 2014 Tiffin Allegro model
TIME WARNER: Judge Rejects Class Action Over Extra Cable Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that on
Jan. 28, L.A. Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue shot down a lawsuit
filed last June against Time Warner Cable and two Los Angeles
sports teams.
In the class action, the plaintiffs objected to being forced to
pay about $4-$5 in additional cable fees per month. The lawsuit
came after TWC spent $3 billion for Los Angeles Lakers telecast
rights and $8 billion for Los Angeles Dodgers telecast rights.
Afterward, the cost was allegedly passed along to cable
subscribers.
"A very large segment of the consuming public is not sufficiently
interested in Dodgers games to pay $50-$60 per year, but they have
no way of unsubscribing from either the Lakers or Dodgers
telecast, which together will add (or will if unrestrained) about
$100 per year to the subscriber's TWC bill," stated the complaint.
The billions of dollars thrown toward the Lakers and Dodgers
impacts cable and satellite subscribers across the country.
TWC sublicenses Lakers TV rights to other television distributors,
including Cox, DirecTV, AT&T U-Verse and Verizon FiOS. In doing
so, TWC requires that distributors offer the Lakers channels on
their enhanced basic cable tiers.
In reaction to the class-action lawsuit, TWC pointed to the Cable
Communications Act of 1984, which expressly authorizes cable
companies to offer programming in bundled "tiers of service."
That's enough to get Judge Hogue to acknowledge that federal law
forbids the application of a state law like California's Unfair
Competition Law that would undermine a cable operator's authority
to add or delete channels in its "enhanced basic service" tier.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit against all the defendants. She
did so without leave to amend, meaning that it's over,
notwithstanding any appeal.
TRIUMPH: Recalls 338 Tiger Explorer and Trophy SE Motorcycles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 16, 2014
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 338
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2014008
TC ID number: 2014008
On certain model motorcycles, the throttle butterfly valve can
deviate from its intended position. This could result in engine
stalling which, in conjunction with traffic, road conditions, and
driver's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or property damage.
Dealers will replace the engine control unit with one having the
latest software and calibration.
Affected products:
Maker Model Model year(s) affected
----- ----- ----------------------
TRIUMPH TROPHY SE 2013, 2014
TRIUMPH TIGER EXPLORER 2012, 2013, 2014
TRIUMPH TIGER EXPLORER SPOKE 2013, 2014
VISA: Court Awards Atty. Fees and Costs in Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 05-MD-1720 (JG) (JO), (E.D.N.Y.) is an
antitrust class action brought by merchants against Visa,
MasterCard, and a number of banks, alleging that the defendants
conspired to fix certain credit card fees and rules.
In a December 13, 2013 memorandum and order, the Court approved a
settlement. The settlement has two principal components: a fund of
about $7.25 billion (before reductions for opt-outs, which reduced
the fund to about $5.7 billion), against which merchants who did
not opt out of a Rule 23(b)(3) class may make damages claims; and
injunctive relief in the form of various credit card network rules
changes, which apply to all members of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. The
Approval Order deferred resolution of the Class Plaintiffs'
simultaneous motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
"Although every case is unique, this case stands out in size,
duration, complexity, and in the nature of the relief afforded to
both the injunctive relief and damages classes. Class Counsel took
on serious risks in prosecuting the case. They now represent that,
taking together all of the hours that they and other plaintiffs'
counsel billed on this case, the lodestar figure for attorneys'
fees is approximately $160 million, reflecting almost 500,000
hours of attorney and paralegal work conducted through November
30, 2012. They request a fee of $570 million, equal to
approximately ten percent of the fund after opt-out reductions,"
District Judge John Gleeson noted.
Against this backdrop, Judge Gleeson granted attorneys' fees in
the amount of $544.8 million. He also approves Class Counsel's
request for expenses in the amount of $27,037,716.97. The request
for incentive payments to the Class Plaintiffs is denied without
prejudice to renewal.
A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/borK58from Leagle.com.
VIVENDI CANADA: Blake Cassels Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francis Rouleau -- francis.rouleau@blakes.com -- Marc-Andre Landry
-- marcandre.landry@blakes.com -- and Ariane Bisaillon --
ariane.bisaillon@blakes.com -- at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
report that in the case of Vivendi Canada Inc. v. Dell' Aniello
(Vivendi), the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) once again addressed
the scope of the criteria for the authorization of class actions,
in particular the criterion of identical questions of fact and law
set out by article 1003(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP).
This follows another important decision on this matter rendered by
the SCC in Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs in
October 2013.
In Vivendi, the validity of a unilateral modification to the
conditions of the health insurance scheme of a retirement plan of
retired Vivendi employees and their surviving spouses was
challenged. The retired employees affected by this modification
resided in six Canadian provinces. Therefore, this was a
"national" class action for which authorization was sought in
Quebec.
The Quebec Superior Court had dismissed the application for
authorization to institute a class action principally because the
"bundling of individual actions" of class members did not lend
itself to a collective resolution, and therefore the action did
not meet the criteria set out at article 1003(a) of the CCP. The
Court of Appeal of Quebec reversed this decision and authorized
the institution of the proposed class action. The SCC affirmed
the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The SCC confirmed that the existence of a single identical,
similar or related question of law or fact that applied to the
entirety of the class was sufficient to authorize the class
action, as long as this question would allow for a non-negligible
portion of the litigation to be resolved and allow for the
progression of the treatment of the claims of the entirety of the
class members. The SCC added that it was not necessary for the
common question to lead to a common response for all of the class
members. This was a novel point in relation to the existing state
of law.
The SCC specified that the criterion of an identical question of
fact or law differs from the common issue criteria applied in
common law provinces. In effect, the Quebec approach to the
criteria of the commonality of issues is less demanding than that
of the other Canadian provinces.
The SCC also took advantage of the opportunity to settle the
jurisprudential debate with respect to the applicability of the
principle of proportionality to class action authorization
motions. The SCC stated that when all of the criteria enumerated
at article 1003(a) of the CCP are met, the judge hearing the
application for authorization must authorize the class action. The
judge therefore should not address the question as to whether the
class action is an adequate procedural vehicle, unlike the
approach in the common law provinces. In this sense, the
proportionality principle set out at article 4.2 of the CCP is not
an independent criterion. That said, the judge must ensure that
the proportionality principle is respected when evaluating each of
the criteria applicable for the authorization of a class action.
This forms part of the authorization judge's discretionary power
to appreciate the case before him.
The Vivendi decision brought some clarity to the doubts that the
SCC seemed to raise in Canada Post Corp. v. Lepine with respect to
the possibility of exercising a national class action: "national"
class actions are possible in Quebec, to the extent that there is
not a substantial divergence between the various applicable legal
regimes, which would eliminate the collective dimension from the
class action. In Vivendi, because of the absence of a designation
of applicable law in the employment contract of the employees at
issue, each individual case was governed by the law of the
province in which the employee resided. Nevertheless, the fact
that several legal regimes applied to the merits of the case does
not automatically make it impossible to be a class action.
Similarly, according to the SCC, the multiplicity of sub-classes
of the proposed class is not in and of itself an inherent obstacle
to the authorization of a class action. The SCC must nevertheless
ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the various
possible class members.
Finally, though the case deals essentially with the criteria of
the commonality of questions at issue, the SCC stated in passing
that the use of the term "arguable case" in the Infineon decision
does not modify the criteria provided for at article 1003(b) of
the CCP as interpreted by the prior jurisprudence, and that the
petitioner must still show a "serious appearance of right."
In summary, the Vivendi case is in line with the Infineon case,
and confirms that the authorization procedure for a class action
in Quebec is more flexible than that in other Canadian provinces.
It remains to be seen how this will be reflected in practice. The
Quebec jurisprudence has reiterated many times that a class action
should not lead to a multitude of "mini trials." However, since
the SCC has stated that it is not necessary to obtain common
answers to identical, similar or related questions of fact or law,
it necessarily follows that multiple solutions will lead to many
mini trials. The authorization judge will therefore be required
to ensure that the multiple potential answers to the common
questions will allow the debate to progress. It is at this stage
that the proportionality principle set out at article 4.2 of the
CCP will come into play for the benefit of both the class members
and the respondents. It will be interesting to follow the
evolution of the jurisprudence in Quebec on this issue.
WALTER INVESTMENT: Securities Litigation in Florida Now Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida has dismissed the securities action Cummings, et al. v.
Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., 8:13-cv-01916-JDW-TBM
without prejudice, according to the company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2013.
On July 24, 2013, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned
Cummings, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al.,
8:13-cv-01916-JDW-TBM. The complaint asserted federal securities
law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Additional claims were asserted against the individual
defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint
alleged that between May 9, 2012 and June 6, 2013 the Company and
the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions
about the integrity of the Company's financial reporting,
including the reporting of expenses associated with certain
financing transactions, and the liabilities associated with the
Company's acquisition of RMS. The complaint sought unspecified
damages on behalf of the individuals or entities which purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities from May 9, 2012
through June 6, 2013. On October 2, 2013, the plaintiff in the
action filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. On
October 3, 2013, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice
and directed the clerk to close the case.
*********
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 G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2014. 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 * * *