/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140617.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 119 Headlines 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: CUTPA Plaintiffs to Appeal Court Rulings 810 DELI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action AEROPOSTALE WEST: Court Rejects FLSA Suit Settlement AIR DRILLING: Refuses to Credit Hours Worked Over 12, Suit Says ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Date Yet in Ill. TCPA Complaint AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Supports Bid to Dismiss "Vickery" Suit APPLE INC: To Face Class Actions on Labor Laws Violation APPLE-METRO INC: Servers Seek to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages ASSURED GUARANTY: 9 Suits Consolidated for Pretrial Proceedings AUTOLIV INC: Enters Into Settlements in US Antitrust Class Suits BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of FX Market Rigging Claims BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Suit Returns to Sacramento Superior Court BERTHEL FISHER: Court Narrows Claims in "Hanson" Class Action CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims CHINA CERAMICS: Faces "Pollock" Securities Suit in S.D. New York CLIFFS NATURAL: Shareholder Wants Fair Vote on Director Nominees CONCEPT AUTO: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages to Class, Suit Says COVISINT CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA, ATDA Violation DIABETIC SUPPLY: Recalls Redi-Code+ Blood Glucose Test Strips DOLE PACKAGED: Court Partially Certifies Class in "Brazil" Suit DOLE PACKAGED: Recalls Roasted Garlic Tomato Basil Soup in Texas DRIVERS SOLUTIONS: Removed "Foschi" Suit to Arizona Dist. Court DUKE ENERGY: Former Employee Seeks Class Status for OT Suit EILLIEN'S CANDIES: Recalls Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Keeping Generic Opana ER Out of Market ENERNOC INC: No Hearing Yet on Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Privacy Class Action FIRST REGIONAL: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 21 FISH FAMILY: Recalls Milk Products, Cream Due to Undeclared Nuts FORD MOTOR: Colo. Judge Narrows Fuel Economy Class Action FRUITLAND AMERICAN: Recalls Ribeye and Carcass Products GREENSMOOTHIEGIRL: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Seed Powder GROWLIFE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in California HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Dismisses Smedt's Second Amended Class Suit HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Sprouted Chia Seed Powder HENRICO COUNTY, VA: Firefighters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime HOMETOWN BUFFET: Removed "Del Campo" Suit to C.D. California IMECA HIALEAH: Never Paid Extra Half Time OT Rate, Suit Claims INFOBLOX INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Class Action INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant in Two Shareholder Lawsuits J2 GLOBAL: Trial in Amended TCPA Complaint Set for Jan. 2016 J2 GLOBAL: Moved to Dismiss Amended eFax(R) Complaint KRAFT FOODS: Removed "Morales" Class Suit to C.D. California LA FINQUITA: Recalls Cheese Product Due to Undeclared Peanuts LANSAL INC: Recalls Egg White Salad With Chives Due To Listeria MOTEL 6: Judgment Reserved on Appeal Bond Bid in "Gould" Suit MR. G'S: Exotic Dancers Seek Class Action Status for Wage Suit NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wants to Delay O'Bannon Anti-Trust Trial NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued for Capping Value of Athletic Scholarships NATIONAL UNION: Sued Over Group Disability Insurance in Louisiana NAVITAS NATURALS: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Powder Products OCEAN SPRAY: Recalls Limited Quantity of Dried Cranberries OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fees Assessed on Borrowers' Accounts OLDE THOMPSON: Recalls Kirkland Malabar Pepper Due to Salmonella ON TRAC: Removed "Tirado" Suit to Southern District of Florida OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: July Class Action Deal Objection Deadline PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Defendant in Securities Violations Suit PALMETTO PERSONAL: Suit Seeks Wage at FLSA-Required Overtime Rate PEEKSKILL, NY: Faces Class Action Over "Unauthorized Transport" PELLA CORPORATION: 7th Cir. Reverses Judgment in "Eubank" Suit PETROLOGISTICS: Being Sold to Koch for Too Little, Suit Claims PGG/HSC FEED: Recalls Champion Lamb Texturized Feed PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Defends Against 8 PNG Merger Suits PRINCESS HOUSE: Recalls Plates Due to Cadmium and Lead Levels PROGRESS ENERGY: Trial in Antitrust Lawsuit to Begin July 2015 PROGRESS ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending PROTECTIVE SERVICE: Removed "Estupinan" Suit to S.D. Florida REACHLOCAL INC: Defendant in Unfair Competition Law Complaint RED ONION STATE: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Officials Denied REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in NY RITE AID: Recalls 16 oz. Pints of Mint 'N Chip Thrifty Ice Cream SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued Over Delay in Generic Version of Zymar SILVERLEAF RESORTS: "Parker" Suit Moved From Houston to Dallas SMITH'S COUNTRY: Recalls Waxed Gouda Wheels Due to Health Risk SPIRIT REALTY: Signed MOU to Settle Cole II Merger Claims STATE FARM: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Pellegrino" Suit STEREOTAXIS INC: Missouri Court Dismisses Securities Suit TD AMERITRADE : Motion to Dismiss "Ross" Complaint Pending TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Dartell" Suit Transferred to New Jersey UNIFUND CCR: 9th Cir. Remands Claims to Calif. State Court US SECURITY: Removed "Allan" Suit to C.D. California VANEE FOODS: Recalls Turkey Base Product Due To Misbranding VIZIO INC: Moved "Hinshaw" Suit to C.D. California VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Class Actions Consolidated WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Bagged Ice Due to Possible Metal Bits WOODRIDGE VILLAGE: Faces Class Action Over $30 Arrestees' Fees ZALICUS INC: Defendant in 3 Merger-Related Lawsuits ZALICUS INC: Defendant in "Harvey Stein" Lawsuit in Delaware ZALICUS INC: Expects Additional Merger-Related Lawsuits ********* 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: CUTPA Plaintiffs to Appeal Court Rulings ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in purported class action complaints alleging, among other things, violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, against 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc., moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against them, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2014. On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0 million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013. On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company intends to defend each of these actions vigorously. On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action. On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending, for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines. On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the Frank case into the Consolidated Action. The time of the remaining defendants to answer what is left of the complaint has not yet expired and on April 28, 2014 Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The Court has not yet ruled on this new motion. The Company states: "There are no assurances that additional legal actions will not be instituted in connection with the Company's former post-transaction marketing practices involving third party vendors nor can we predict the outcome of any such legal action. At this time, we are unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for the aforementioned actions for various reasons, including, among others: (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the very early stages and the court has not yet ruled as to whether the classes will be certified, and (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending motions. As a result of the foregoing, we have determined that the amount of possible loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which may be beyond our control." 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. is florist and gift shop. The Company delivers fresh flowers and a selection of plants, gift baskets, gourmet foods, confections, candles, balloons and plush stuffed animals. The Company operates in three segments: Consumer Floral, Gourmet Food and Gift Baskets, and BloomNet Wire Service. The Consumer Floral segment includes the operations of the Company's brand, such as 1-800-Flowers.com, Flowerama, Celebrations and FineStationery.com. The Gourmet Food and Gift Baskets segment includes the operations of Fannie May Confections Brands, Cheryl's (which includes Mrs. Beasley's), The Popcorn Factory, Winetasting.com, Stockyards.com , DesignPac and 1-800-Baskets. The BloomNet Wire Service segment includes the operations of BloomNet, BloomNet Technologies, BloomNet Products and Napco. On September 6, 2011, the Company, through the Winetasting Network subsidiary, completed the sale of certain assets of its wine fulfillment services business. 810 DELI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Caraballo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 810 Deli, Inc. d/b/a 810 Deli & Cafe and John Zapantis, Case No. 1:14-cv-04107-KBF (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), alleges that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. 810 Deli, Inc., doing business as 810 Deli & Cafe, is a New York domestic business corporation with a principal place of business located in New York City. John Zapantis is the chairman or chief executive officer of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Colorado, and docketed under 1:14-cv-01243, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Advanced Emissions securities between March 14, 2013 and March 12, 2014, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Advanced Emissions securities during the Class Period, you have until June 30, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides environmental technologies and specialty chemicals to the coal-burning electric power generation industry, primarily in the United States. It operates through three segments: Refined Coal, Emission Control, and CO2 Capture. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was employing improper accounting practices, particularly with respect to its method for recognizing revenue for its Emission Control business segment contracts; (ii) the Company was experiencing increased operating losses, primarily driven by a reduction of revenues and margins for its Emission Control segment with a corresponding increase in backlog; (iii) the improper accounting practices would require the Company to restate its reported financial statements, and (iv) as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 13, 2014, the Company announced in a Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Form 8-K filing that, "the Company is currently reviewing its accounting practices, particularly its methods of recognizing revenue for its Emission Control business segment contracts. The Company expects the result of this review will likely result in increased operating losses, primarily driven by a reduction of revenues and margins for its emission control segment with a corresponding increase in backlog for the same period." On this news, shares of Advanced Emissions fell from $54.23 to $50.90, on March 13, 2014, on unusually heavy trading volume. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. AEROPOSTALE WEST: Court Rejects FLSA Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Alsup denied preliminary approval of an FLSA collective-action settlement in the case captioned PORTIA DANIELS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AEROPOSTALE WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation, AEROPOSTALE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. C 12-05755 WHA, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the May 29, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/JbSgPAfrom Leagle.com. The plaintiff's counsel moved for preliminary approval of the FLSA collective-action settlement in this overtime action. The Plaintiff's counsel proposed that the majority of opt-in collective-action members give a release and covenant not to sue to defendants in exchange for zero cash. "This settlement is so unfair, it cannot be fixed," held Judge Alsup. "The Court is tentatively convinced that the opt ins would be better off fending for themselves and escaping the negotiating authority of plaintiff's counsel. Therefore, preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is denied. Counsel are ordered to show cause (i) why the conditional FLSA certification should not be vacated, (ii) why plaintiff's counsel should not be required to notify all opt ins by letter of the decertification and the specific reasons therefor (costs borne by plaintiff's counsel), and (iii) why this case should not go to trial on August 18 on the named plaintiff's claim only (the original trial date of June 9 is now too immediate to be practical), with a final pretrial conference on August 13 AT 2:00 P.M. Any submissions on this order to show cause must be filed on or before June 10, 2014 at noon. All counsel are further ordered to promptly submit copies of this order to the judges presiding over the Sankey and Pakaz actions," he added. Portia Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph R Becerra -- jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com -- Law Office of Joseph R. Becerra & Torey Joseph Favarote -- tjf@gfemploymentlawyers.com -- Gleason & Favarote LLP. Aeropostale West, Inc, Defendant, represented by Rachel Caren Schumacher -- rachel.schumacher@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Robert James Dwyer -- robert.dwyer@kattenlaw.com -- & Stacey Dianne McKee-Knight -- stacey.knight@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman. Aeropostale, Inc, Defendant, represented by Rachel Caren Schumacher, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Robert James Dwyer & Stacey Dianne McKee-Knight, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman. AIR DRILLING: Refuses to Credit Hours Worked Over 12, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Neal, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. Air Drilling Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01104-UN4 (M.D. Pa., June 6, 2014), alleges that the Defendant generally refuses to give the Plaintiff and other Field Employees any payroll credit for hours worked over 12 per day. The Defendant's companywide timekeeping/payroll system is programmed to default to a 12-hour workday in recording Field Employees' work hours, Mr. Neal contends. Headquartered in Farmington, New Mexico, Air Drilling Associates, Inc., is a corporate entity registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State. The Company maintains a local "satellite location" in Muncy, Pennsylvania (Lycoming County). The Company provides a variety of on-site services at gas and oil drilling sites throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Date Yet in Ill. TCPA Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- No trial date is scheduled for the TCPA class action complaint against Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. The Company states: "On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been scheduled." Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. is a provider of clinical, financial, connectivity and information solutions and related professional services to hospitals, physicians and post-acute organizations. AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Supports Bid to Dismiss "Vickery" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Public Education, Inc., on April 10, 2014, filed its reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss the Vickery et al. complaint asserting, among other things, fraud and fraudulent inducement, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On or about November 18, 2013, a putative class action styled Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn, on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class v. Hondros College, Inc. and John G. Hondros, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, case no. CV 13 817299. National Education Seminars, Inc., which operates as Hondros College, Nursing Programs, or HCON, was not named in the lawsuit, but a member of HCON's board of directors, John Hondros, was named in the lawsuit, and the allegations made in the complaint relate to HCON's operations and not the operations of the entity named in the lawsuit. The lawsuit asserts claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, for, among other things, the alleged provision of false or misleading information to the named plaintiffs and other putative class members in 2011 and 2012 regarding the status of accreditation by National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission of HCON's Associate Degree in Nursing, or ADN, program offered at its Independence, Ohio campus. The plaintiffs allege that the putative class consists of more than 60 former students who in the summer or fall quarters of 2011 enrolled in the ADN or the licensed practical nursing, or LPN, program at the Independence campus with the intention of pursuing a degree in nursing, but who withdrew from the ADN or LPN program. On February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which removed Hondros College, Inc. as a defendant and added HCON as a defendant. On February 24, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. On April 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. On April 10, 2014, the defendants filed their reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. The Company is currently unable to estimate the likelihood or range of reasonably probable loss, if any, for this matter. The Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding, if adverse to HCON, would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition. American Public Education, Inc. is a provider of online postsecondary education with an emphasis on serving the needs of the military and public service communities. The Company operates through two universities: American Military University (AMU), and American Public University (APU). Together, AMU and APU constitute the American Public University System (APUS). APPLE INC: To Face Class Actions on Labor Laws Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Apple must still face claims that it violated labor laws by not paying its employees for time spent waiting in line and undergoing security bag searches, after a federal judge refused to throw out two class actions. The lawsuits claim that Apple requires its hourly employees to undergo off-the-clock security bag searches and clearance checks when they leave for meal breaks and after they have clocked out at the end of their shifts. Because employees usually end their shifts and take breaks around the same time, they often end up waiting between 10 to 15 minutes off-the-clock to get through the security screenings, according to the suits. Apple moved for summary judgment, arguing that only employees who have bags or Apple devices are required to undergo the screenings, and bringing such items to work is voluntary. U.S. District Judge William Alsup found the record to be ambiguous about whether the screenings were mandatory, and ruled that too many individualized factual questions regarding Apple's screening practices existed to be able to grant the company summary judgment. There appears to be "a range of policies and practices at various stores, rather than a crisp scenario," he wrote. Among other things, Alsup noted that it is unclear how Apple's supervisors interpret the word, "bag," whether Apple employees must wait in line in order to determine whether they will be subject to a security screening or waved through, and to what extent employees are required to stand in line because they used a bag to bring "necessities of life" into the workplace. "Apple employees may need to bring a bag to work for reasons they cannot control, such as the need for medication, feminine hygiene products, or disability accommodations," Alsup wrote. The lawsuits must be stayed, however, pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, a similar case involving hourly paid employees who must undergo mandatory security screenings. Alsup anticipates that the Supreme Court will make its decision in that case in the spring of 2015. Both sides in the current case are expected to continue with discovery as to the California state-law claims, however, as those claims might survive even if the Supreme Court's ruling moots the other claims. APPLE-METRO INC: Servers Seek to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Atavia Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple-Metro, Inc., d/b/a Applebee's, Zane Tankel and Roy Raeburn, Case No. 1:14-cv-04120 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, unlawful deductions, and other wages for the Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers -- servers, bussers, runners, bartenders, barbacks, hosts, and other "tipped workers" -- who work or have worked at Apple-Metro, Inc. Apple-Metro, Inc., doing business as Applebee's, is headquartered in Harrison, New York. Apple-Metro; Zane Tankel, chief executive officer; and Roy Raeburn, president, own and operate 38 Applebee's restaurants throughout five New York City boroughs, as well as in Westchester and Rockland Counties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2057 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com sabrahamson@outtengolden.com - and - Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 ASSURED GUARANTY: 9 Suits Consolidated for Pretrial Proceedings --------------------------------------------------------------- Nine putative class action lawsuits filed against Assured Guaranty Ltd., alleging federal antitrust violations, have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including GICs. These cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 ("MDL 1950"). Five of these cases named both AGMH and AGM: (a) Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the federal claims, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on October 9, 2013, lists neither AGM nor AGMH as a named defendant or a co-conspirator. The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits. Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation, thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp. When the four plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant. However, the complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities. The consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part the named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated complaint. Assured Guaranty Ltd. (AGL) is a Bermuda-based holding company. The securities insured by the Company include taxable and tax- exempt obligations issued by the United State state or municipal governmental authorities, utility districts or facilities; notes or bonds issued to finance international infrastructure projects; and asset-backed securities issued by special purpose entities. The Company markets its credit protection products directly to issuers and underwriters of public finance, infrastructure and structured finance securities as well as to investors in such debt obligations. The Company conducts its financial guaranty business on a direct basis from two companies: Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp (AGM) and Assured Guaranty Corp. (AGC). The Company's principal operating subsidiaries include Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., Assured Guaranty Corp., and Assured Guaranty Re Ltd. AUTOLIV INC: Enters Into Settlements in US Antitrust Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv, Inc. has entered into separate settlement agreements with three classes of purchasers in antitrust class actions in the United States. Autoliv and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in multiple putative antitrust class actions pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "MDL"). These class actions are brought on behalf of three separate alleged classes of purchasers of occupant safety systems in the United States, namely: direct purchasers, auto dealers and "end- payors" (consumers). In entering the settlement agreements, Autoliv does not admit any liability and is settling for the purpose of avoiding the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of further class action litigation in the MDL. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, Autoliv has agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of $65 million. The direct purchaser settlement amount is subject to potential downward adjustments to a floor of $24 million based on the volume of Autoliv's sales represented by direct purchasers who elect to opt out from the settlement class. Each settlement agreement gives Autoliv the option to void that settlement if the opt-outs from the settlement class exceed varying thresholds. Each settlement agreement also provides that the settlement class members will release Autoliv, its subsidiaries, and its and their respective current and former officers, directors and employees, from the claims and demands that were or could have been asserted. Each settlement is subject to certain conditions including court approval following notice to the settlement class members. If approved, the settlements will resolve the claims asserted against Autoliv and its subsidiaries on behalf of the three settlement classes. Autoliv expects to record an expense of approximately $65 million in its second quarter 2014 results. About Autoliv Autoliv, Inc. -- http://www.autoliv.com-- develops and manufactures automotive safety systems for all major automotive manufacturers in the world. Together with its joint ventures, Autoliv has more than 80 facilities with over 56,000 employees in 29 countries. In addition, the Company has ten technical centers in nine countries around the world, with 21 test tracks, more than any other automotive safety supplier. Sales in 2013 amounted to US$8.8 billion. The Company's shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange and its Swedish Depository Receipts on the OMX Nordic Exchange in Stockholm. BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of FX Market Rigging Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Avi Mizrahi, writing for Forex Magnates, reports that a dozen major global banks accused of allegedly rigging the FX markets asked US District Judge Lorna Schofield on May 30 to dismiss all the claims against them. In their filing to the Manhattan Federal Court, the banks argued that the accusers had failed to properly prove the existence of an international conspiracy. The case in question is a consolidated antitrust lawsuit based on the allegations by retirement funds and other investors that institutional traders at the major banks conspired to collectively distort FX rates for the benefit of the banks and to the detriment of their clients and other traders in the global market. The allegations were brought up after a wave of announcements by financial regulators and law enforcements agencies from around the world confirming that investigations of the major banks are ongoing. As Forex Magnates previously reported, the investigations focus on Bloomberg terminals' chat groups with names such as "The Cartel," "The Mafia" and "The Bandits' Club," where bank traders allegedly shared information with their supposed competitors, allowing them to execute their own trades before filling client orders and sought to manipulate the benchmark WM/Reuters FX rates. The joint motion to dismiss the case against them was brought by Bank of America Corp, Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS AG. According to the lawsuit, these dozen banks control 84% of the global market and act as counterparties in 98% of U.S. spot volume. The defendants claimed in the filing: "Despite their breathtaking scope, the complaints do not plead a single fact about a single instance in which a single defendant engaged in even one concerted act to manipulate any particular currency rate. Nor do they identify a single transaction by a plaintiff or any factual basis for a claim that any plaintiff has been injured by an alleged conspiracy to manipulate benchmark exchange rates." BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Suit Returns to Sacramento Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- CASSANDRA CARAG, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., a Delaware corporation; BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-00481-JAM-DAD, (E.D. Cal.) is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to remand and motion to strike portions of the Defendants' answer to the complaint. In an order dated May 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/VnDC0cfrom Leagle.com, District Judge John A. Mendez granted the motion. "As the case is remanded back to the Sacramento County Superior Court, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike portions of Defendants' answer is denied without prejudice," Judge Mendez added. Cassandra Carag, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC, Jill Jessica Parker -- jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC & Jonathan Michael Lebe -- jon@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather M. Sager -- hsager@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP & Ayse Kuzucuoglu -- akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather M. Sager, Vedder Price (CA), LLP & Ayse Kuzucuoglu, Vedder Price (CA), LLP. BERTHEL FISHER: Court Narrows Claims in "Hanson" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Linda R. Reade granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed in the case captioned JON HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BERTHEL FISHER & COMPANY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and THOMAS JOSEPH BERTHEL, Defendants, NO. 13-CV-67-LRR, (N.D. Iowa). Plaintiff Jon Hanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed his Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendants on November 4, 2013. The Complaint asserts eleven claims: (1) Count I asserts that Defendants violated California Corporations Code section 25401, or, in the alternative, California Corporations Code section 25504; (2) Count II asserts that Defendants violated California Corporations Code section 25400; (3) Count III asserts that Defendants unlawfully induced a contract by knowing misrepresentations, in violation of California Corporations Code section 1572 and California common law; (4) Count IV asserts that Defendants made negligent misrepresentations in violation of California common law; (5) Count V asserts that Defendants were negligent in violation of California common law; (6) Count VI asserts that Defendants aided and abetted fraud in violation of California common law; (7) Count VII asserts that Defendants violated Iowa Uniform Securities Act section 502.501; (8) Count VIII asserts that Defendants violated Iowa Uniform Securities Act section 502.501A; (9) Count IX asserts that Defendants made negligent misrepresentations in violation of Iowa common law; (10) Count X asserts that Defendants were negligent in violation of Iowa common law; and (11) Count XI asserts that Defendants aided and abetted fraud in violation of Iowa common law. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Judge Reade held that with respect to Plaintiffs' claims against Thomas Joseph Berthel, the Motion is granted and Counts I through XI are dismissed against Thomas Joseph Berthel. Judge Reade directed the Clerk of Court to dismiss Thomas Joseph Berthel from the case. With respect to Counts II, IV and IX, the Motion is granted and Counts II, IV and IX are dismissed. With respect to Counts I, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, X and XI, the Motion is denied. A copy of the May 29, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/e246umfrom Leagle.com Jon Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by: J Barton Goplerud, Esq. HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON, PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: 866-916-9127 515-223-4567 Facsimile: 515-223-8887 - and - Alan L Rosca, Esq. Daniel J Carr, Esq. Joseph C Peiffer, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA ABDULLAH & CARR LLC 526 Superior Avenue, Suite 401 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: 888-998-0520 Facsimile: 504-586-5250 Berthel Fisher and Company Financial Services, Inc, Defendant, represented by Paul D Gamez -- pgamez@simmonsperrine.com -- Simmons, Perrine, Moyer & Bergman, PLC, Stephen J Holtman -- sholtman@simmonsperrine.com -- Simmons Perrine PLC, Aaron Richard Hartman -- ahartman@aoblaw.com -- Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA & Vincent D Louwagie -- vlouwagie@aoblaw.com -- Anthony, Ostlund, Baer & Louwagie, PA. CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling Chelsea Therapeutics too cheaply through an unfair process to H. Lundbeck A/S, for $6.44 a share or $623 million, shareholders claim in a class action Federal Court in Wilmington, Del. CHINA CERAMICS: Faces "Pollock" Securities Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Pollock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang, Jianwei Liu, and China Ceramics Co., Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-04100 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased the common stock of China Ceramics between March 30, 2012, and May 1, 2014, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. China Ceramics is a British Virgin Islands corporation headquartered in Jinjing, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China. The Company is a leading Chinese manufacturer of ceramic tiles used for exterior siding and for interior flooring and design in residential and commercial buildings. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com kchani@rosenlegal.com CLIFFS NATURAL: Shareholder Wants Fair Vote on Director Nominees ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Pope, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Shareholders of Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., Gary B. Halverson, Susan M. Cunningham, Barry J. Eldridge, Mark E. Gaumond, Andres R. Gluski, Susan M. Green, Janice K. Henry, James F. Kirsch, Stephen Johnson, Richard K. Riederer, Timothy W. Sullivan, Case No. 1:14-cv-01234 (N.D. Ohio, June 6, 2014), is brought by the Plaintiff to allegedly allow a fair vote between two rival slates of director candidates at the Company's next annual meeting on July 29, 2014. Mr. Pope, who owned shares of CNR common stock, alleges that CNR's current Board of Directors is attempting to prevent a fair vote by taking self-serving actions to entrench itself and fend off the competing slate. He notes that the vote is important as CNR has been underperforming for years. He says that Casablanca Capital LP, an activist shareholder, has nominated six new director candidates for election to the Board in response to its expressed concerns over CNR's poor performance and past mistakes. CNR's current Board, however, is using the terms of CNR's senior notes to warn of severe adverse consequences for CNR if Casablanca's slate of directors is elected at their expense, he adds. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. The Company produces iron ore and metallurgical coal. CNR operates iron ore and coal mines in North America and an iron ore mining complex in Western Australia. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of CNR. Bid for Injunction In addition to his complaint, Mr. Pope also asks the Court for an order granting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction: (1) enjoining the Defendants from directly or indirectly proceeding with the Company's proxy solicitation and consents in connection with the upcoming July 29, 2014 CNR annual shareholder vote; (2) rescinding, to the extent already submitted, any proxy cards granted to the Defendants by CNR's shareholders; and (3) adjourning the Annual Vote to a date at least 30 days after CNR's Board: (i) "approves" the slate of director candidates nominated by Casablanca; and (ii) amends CNR's outstanding proxy materials or otherwise notifies CNR's shareholders that CNR's Board "approves" Casablanca's director nominees and that CNR's "proxy puts" will no longer be triggered. Mr. Pope tells the Court that no third-parties will be harmed in connection with the requested injunctive relief. To the contrary, he contends, all parties will benefit if the requested relief is granted because rather than risk plunging CNR into unsurmountable debt, CNR's Board will reconsider its stance regarding Casablanca's slate, "approve" the nominees, and avoid the "proxy puts" entirely. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq. Joshua R. Cohen, Esq. James B. Rosenthal, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP The Hoyt-Block Building, Suite 400 700 West St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 781-7956 Facsimile: (216) 781-8061 E-mail: jfuchs@crklaw.com jcohen@crklaw.com jbr@crklaw.com - and - Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com aapton@zlk.com CONCEPT AUTO: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages to Class, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Alvarez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Concept Auto, Inc. d/b/a Payless Car Sales d/b/a Credit Master and Marat Kvachuk, Case No. 1:14-cv-22114-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2014), accuses the Defendants of willfully and intentionally refusing to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Concept Auto, Inc., doing business as Payless Car Sales, doing business as Credit Master, is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. Marat Kvachuk is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM COVISINT CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 30 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Covisint Corporation common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Covisint's September 26, 2013 initial public stock offering, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 30, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/covisint/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Covisint, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the IPO with violations of the Securities Act. Covisint provides a cloud engagement platform for enabling organizations to securely connect, engage and collaborate with large, distributed communities of customers, business partners and suppliers. In the IPO, the Company sold 6.4 million shares of Covisint common stock to the public at $10 per share, raising approximately $64 million in gross proceeds for the Company. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, and the documents referenced and incorporated therein, negligently failed to disclose the following material facts which existed at the time of the IPO: (i) that the Company was experiencing a greater than expected decline in its subscription revenue due to poor sales execution and late-stage pipeline conversion issues; (ii) that the Company was facing increased competition in its services segment as customers were not adding services at a rate consistent with expectations; (iii) that the Company was experiencing a decline in General Motors-related service revenue; (iv) that the Company was losing healthcare customers at an increasing rate and its pipeline of healthcare-related deals was steadily declining and included numerous deals that were not likely to be consummated; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable basis to "expect" revenues for 2014 to increase by 20% from 2013. These known, but undisclosed, facts had a material adverse effect on Covisint's operating results during its fourth quarter and fiscal 2014 full-year. At the time of the filing of the lawsuit, Covisint stock was trading at approximately $5.37 per share, a 46% decline from the IPO price. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Covisint common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September 26, 2013 IPO. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action. CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA, ATDA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against CVS Pharmacy after the plaintiffs claimed it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Automatic Telephone Dialers Act. The lawsuit alleges that the pharmacy autodialed cell phone users from blocked numbers and played pre-recorded advertising messages, urging them to visit a nearby CVS store for flu shots and other services. CVS and MinuteClinic caused Carl Lowe and Kearby Kaiser to receive unsolicited autodialed and pre-recorded voice calls, which impeded caller identification, according to a complaint filed May 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. "Within the four years prior to the filing of this action, defendants used equipment to dial the telephone number of potential customers, including plaintiffs," the complaint states. "The equipment defendants used to call plaintiffs and others not only had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator . . . but was programmed to sequentially or randomly access stored telephone numbers to automatically connect a telephone with a recorded message. These calls were made with equipment capable of dialing numbers without human intervention, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim CVS's calls did not use live voice interaction, but consisted of taped communications soliciting goods and services. "Many of the people whose phones were called as a result of defendants' autodialing and pre-recorded voice message practices never actually consented to receive such calls, including plaintiffs," the complaint states. Many of these individuals were called more than once and the defendant lacks an adequate system for preventing autodialed or pre-recorded voice calls to phones for which they do not have consent to call, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim the defendants intended to make the calls and were well aware of the TCPA, ATDA and other federal and state statutes' prohibitions against use of autodialers and pre-recorded messages in calls to consumers, but made the business decision to make these calls anyway. "Defendants also knew that the TCPA, ATDA and other state and/or federal laws prohibit manipulation of caller ID information, but did this anyway," the complaint states. The plaintiffs did not give CVS permission or consent to make calls to their cell phones, according to the suit. "Plaintiffs and the classes have been substantially damaged by defendants' calls," the complaint states. "Their privacy was improperly invaded, many were charged for the calls and they were annoyed." On Oct. 27, Mr. Lowe claims CVS called him in and left a voicemail message alerting "Anna" that her prescription was ready, then offering flu shot services, however, he claims no one named Anna has access to his cell phone number. Mr. Lowe claims he has received similar calls from CVS for Anna in the past and went to the store a year earlier to tell it to stop calling his number. Kaiser claimed on Sept. 11, he received a call from an anonymous number stating that CVS's MinuteClinic was offering a 20 percent shopping pass for those who came in to get flu shots. Kaiser received several similar calls in the past, according to the suit. The plaintiffs are seeking at least $500 in damages for each violation and an injunction forbidding CVS from making similar calls in the future. They are being represented by Alexander H. Burke -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- of Burke Law Offices LLC; and Daniel J. Marovitch of Marovitch Law Firm LLC. The case has been assigned to District Judge John Z. Lee. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case number: 1:14-cv-3687 DIABETIC SUPPLY: Recalls Redi-Code+ Blood Glucose Test Strips ------------------------------------------------------------- Diabetic Supply of Suncoast, Inc. initiated a nationwide voluntary recall of all BMB-BA006A Advocate Redi-Code+ blood glucose test strip lots manufactured by BroadMaster Bio-Tech Corp currently in the market place. The Advocate Redi-Code+ BMB-BA006A blood glucose test strips are being recalled due to a labeling error which could result in confusion about which meter models the Redi-Code+ BMB- BA006A blood glucose test strips are designed to be used with. In the incorrect labeling, the test strips model (BMB-BA006A) was omitted. This error may lead users to believe they can use the Advocate Redi-Code+ BMB-BA006A blood glucose test strips with the Advocate Redi-Code blood glucose meters, model numbers TD-3223E, TD-4223E, TD-4223F, TD-4276 manufactured by Taidoc Technology Corp. The Advocate Redi-Code+ BMB-BA006A blood glucose test strips should only be used with the Advocate Redi-Code+ BMB-EA001S and EA001A blood glucose meters manufactured by BroadMaster Bio-Tech Corp. Suncoast is recalling the test strips in an effort to avoid confusion and the possible misuse of the Advocate Redi-Code+ blood glucose test strips with the Taidoc meters listed, which could result in incorrect glucose results. Falsely high or falsely low glucose results could potentially cause missed or delayed hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia detection and lead to no treatment or inappropriate treatment. Delayed or inappropriate treatment of hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic states could lead to serious health consequences, including death. Customers who have the affected test strips can contact Diabetic Supply of Suncoast, Inc. directly for further information to determine if the test strips are being used in the proper manor or if they need to be returned to Suncoast for replacement. Test strips will be replaced with relabeled boxes of test strips to avoid any chance of confusion. Consumers should stop using the test strips and contact Suncoast to find out if this recall pertains to the test strips they have in their possession and if so how to have them replaced for the relabeled products manufactured by BroadMaster Bio-Tech. Customers who have the Advocate Redi-Code blood glucose meters manufactured by Taidoc Technology Corp should follow the product User Manual for information about the appropriate test strips to be used with the Taidoc meters. Diabetic Supply of Suncoast, Inc. is notifying its wholesale Distributors, Pharmacies, Medical Supply stores, Health Care Providers and direct customers throughout the entire US and Virgin Islands by letter and Press Release about the specifics of the recall. Customers with questions may contact Diabetic Supply of Suncoast at (561) 296-0488 between the hours of 9:00AM and 5:00PM Monday through Friday Eastern standard time or view the information at www.dsosi.com DOLE PACKAGED: Court Partially Certifies Class in "Brazil" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh issued an order granting in part and denying in part a motion for class certification in the case captioned CHAD BRAZIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-01831-LHK, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the District Court's May 30, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/wg0HD1from Leagle.com. The Court certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons in the United States who, from April 11, 2008, until the date of notice, purchased a Dole fruit product bearing the front panel label statement 'All Natural Fruit' but which contained citric acid and ascorbic acid. Excluded from the class are (1) Dole and its subsidiaries and affiliates, (2) governmental entities, and (3) the Court to which this case is assigned and its staff." The Court also certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons in California who, from April 11, 2008, until the date of notice, purchased a Dole fruit product bearing the front panel label statement 'All Natural Fruit' but which contained citric acid and ascorbic acid. Excluded from the class are (1) Dole and its subsidiaries and affiliates, (2) governmental entities, (3) the Court to which this case is assigned and its staff, and (4) All persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class." The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of a nationwide 23(b)(3) class. The Court appoints Plaintiff Chad Brazil as the class representative, and Pratt & Associates, Charles Barrett, P.C., and Barrett Law Group, P.A. as class counsel. The Court dismisses with prejudice the Dole products and label statements identified in the Second Amended Complaint for which Brazil did not move for class certification. The Court ordered Mr. Brazil to file an amended complaint that amends the class definitions to comport with the Court's certified class definitions, and deletes the dismissed Dole products and label statements. Plaintiffs may not make any other substantive change to the complaint, unless Defendant stipulates to the change. Chad Brazil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Peet -- alex@lovelacelaw.com -- Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, David Shelton -- David@davidsheltonpllc.com -- David Shelton, PLLC, Frank Karam -- fkaram@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law Firm, Ananda N. Chaudhuri -- achaudhuri@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law Firm, Brian K Herrington, Don Barrett, P.A., Carol Nelkin -- c.nelkin@nelkinpc.com -- Nelkin, Nelkin & Krock, PC, Charles F. Barrett, Charles Barrett, P.C., David Malcolm McMullan, Jr. -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett, P.A., Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr. -- dml@lovelacelaw.com -- Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., J. Price Coleman, Coleman Law Firm, Jay P. Nelkin -- jnelkin@nelkinpc.com -- Nelkin & Nelkin, P.C., John W. (Don) Barrett -- dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett, P.A., Katherine B. Riley -- kbriley@barrettlawoffice.com -- Don Barrett, P.A., Keith M. Fleischman -- keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- The Fleischman Law Firm, Richard Barrett, Law Offices of Richard R. Barrett, PLLC & Stuart M Nelkin -- snelkin@nnklawfirm.com -- Nelkin, Nelkin & Krock, PC. Dole Packaged Food, LLC, Defendant, represented by William Lewis Stern, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi -- vetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & William Francis Tarantino -- WTarantino@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster. DOLE PACKAGED: Recalls Roasted Garlic Tomato Basil Soup in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dole Packaged Foods, LLC is voluntarily recalling DOLE Garden Soup "Roasted Garlic Tomato Basil", due to an undeclared milk allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The product is a 26 oz. carton with UPC Code 3890002404, Lot Numbers WF14113 and WF14114 ONLY, Best by Oct 23 2015 and Oct 24 2015 respectively. The UPC CODE is on the side panel and the lot number and best by information are printed on the top of the carton. The recalled product was distributed only in TEXAS through retail grocery stores. No other Dole Packaged Foods products are affected. No illnesses have been reported to date in association with the recall. Dole Packaged Foods has notified the Food and Drug Administration and is coordinating closely with it. Consumers who purchased any of these lots are asked to return to the place of purchase for a full refund. The company has contacted the retailers to retrieve the affected lots. Replacement stocks of unaffected lots are being shipped. Retailers and consumers with questions may call the Dole Packaged Foods Consumer Response Center at (800) 232-8888 24 hours a day. DRIVERS SOLUTIONS: Removed "Foschi" Suit to Arizona Dist. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit styled Foschi v. Pennella, et al., Case No. CV2014-008022, was removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01253-DKD to the proceeding. Daniel Foschi, a current employee of the Defendants, alleges that they have willfully contravened his right to be compensated for all wages and overtime due him in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act. Drivers Solutions, Inc. is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business in Sun City, Arizona. According to its Web site, Drivers Solutions is "a complete delivery service company that specializes in automotive parts distribution and comprehensive logistics." The Individual Defendants are owners, officers or directors of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Kaitlyn A. Redfield-Ortiz, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 349 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505 Telephone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 E-mail: nicholas.enoch@azbar.org kaitlyn@lubinandenoch.com The Defendants are represented by: Laurent R.G. Badoux, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 445-8000 Facsimile: (602) 445-8100 E-mail: badouxl@gtlaw.com DUKE ENERGY: Former Employee Seeks Class Status for OT Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Penn, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that a former Duke Energy Florida employee wants a Pinellas County Circuit Court judge to approve a class-action case against the utility for allegedly failing to pay overtime to hourly workers. The lawsuit was filed by Janet Farnham, who was hired to work for the utility from January 2012 to April 2014 through Allied Staff Augmentation Partners Inc., a Charlotte, N.C., firm. Ms. Farnham alleges Duke and Allied Staff, which also is named as a defendant in the suit, "had a policy and practice of requiring (Farnham) and similarly situated employees to work in excess of forty (40) hours each work week without paying them wages and/or overtime compensation as required by the (Fair Labor Standards Act of 1928)." Michael Schuette, Ms. Farnham's lawyer, said his firm recently received the case and is still reviewing how many others might be affected by the overtime issue. Mr. Schuette filed the lawsuit May 13. Neither Duke nor Allied Staff would comment because of the pending litigation. EILLIEN'S CANDIES: Recalls Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy ---------------------------------------------------------- Eillien's Candies, Inc. is voluntarily recalling Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy because the product contains undeclared milk. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. This recall affects all dates and all products listed below with a "Best By" date prior to June 1st, 2015. (06-01-15) UPC Label & size --- ------------ 034952573077 Eillien's Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy, 12oz. Tray 034952129946 Eillien's Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy, 6oz. Header bag 034952569278 Eillien's Holiday Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy, 10oz. bag 034952811711 Blains Farm & Fleet Dark Sponge Candy 14oz. bag 034952574777 Piggly Wiggly Dark Sponge Candy 12oz. Tray 034952581386 Piggly Wiggly Dark Sponge Candy 10oz. bag 034952139563 Mrs. Kimball's Candy Shoppe Dark Sponge Candy 13oz. bag 034952410754 Mae's Comer Market Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy 14oz. bag 034952410983 Mae's Comer Market Dark Old Fashioned Sponge Candy 24oz. bag 034952413243 Mae's Comer Market Premium Party Tray (Large B) 59.5oz. The voluntary recall was initiated after one reported illness. It was discovered that the milk-containing product was distributed in packaging that did not declare the presence of milk. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by an oversight in the labeling process. Consumers with recalled product should return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Eillien's Candies, Inc. at 920-336-7549 between the hours of 8am- 4pm. Monday thru Friday, central time. ENDO HEALTH: Accused of Keeping Generic Opana ER Out of Market -------------------------------------------------------------- Value Drug Company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02630 (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' alleged unlawful scheme to allocate the market for extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride, which Endo sells under the brand name Opana ER. As part of the Defendants' unlawful scheme, Endo paid Impax over $112 million in cash in exchange for Impax agreeing to keep its less expensive, generic version of Opana ER out of the market for two and a half years -- from June 2010 to January 2013 -- during which time Endo switched the market for Opana ER to a new formulation of Opana ER, the Opana ER CRF, Value Drug alleges. Oxymorphone hydrochloride has been marketed and sold by Endo in the United States for almost 50 years in various dosage forms including a rectal suppository and an intravenous drip. Oxymorphone hydrochloride is a strong opioid agonist indicated to treat pain and also as a preoperative medication to alleviate apprehension, maintain anesthesia, and as an obstetric analgesic. Oxymorphone hydrochloride was first synthesized in 1914. Endo Health Solutions Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania. Until May 2012, Endo Health Solutions Inc. was known as Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo Health Solutions Inc. Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. was acquired by Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. on November 4, 2010. Prior to the acquisition, Penwest was a Washington corporation, and Endo and Penwest developed and marketed Opana ER together. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Hayward, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Eldridge Bower, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Joseph Opper, Esq. Noah Silverman, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 Facsimile: (212) 764-6620 E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com jopper@garwingerstein.com nsilverman@garwingerstein.com - and - Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. Andrew W. Kelly, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES, L.L.P. 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 Facsimile: (504) 522-0078 E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com - and - David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq. Erin R. Leger, Esq. 3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111 Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 Facsimile: (318) 487-1741 E-mail: draphael@ssrllp.com - and - Russ Chorush, Esq. Miranda Jones, Esq. HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP 600 Travis, Suite 6710 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 Facsimile: (713) 221-2021 E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com ENERNOC INC: No Hearing Yet on Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- No hearing date has been set for the purported class action complaint against EnerNOC, Inc., alleging that its proxy statement filed on April 26, 2013 was false and misleading, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company (the Plaintiff) filed a derivative and class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the Court) against certain officers and directors of the Company as well as the Company as a nominal defendant (the Defendants). The complaint asserts derivative claims, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company, for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with certain equity grants (awarded in 2010, 2012, and 2013) that allegedly exceeded an annual limit on per-employee equity grants purported to be contained in the 2007 Plan. The complaint also asserts a direct claim, brought on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed class of the Company's shareholders, alleging the Company's proxy statement filed on April 26, 2013 was false and misleading because it failed to disclose that the equity grants were improper. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, rescission of the equity grants, unspecified damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 30, 2013. Plaintiff responded to the motion on October 18, 2013, and Defendants replied on November 22, 2013. No hearing date has been set. The Company continues to believe that the Company and the other defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims and allegations contained in the complaint, and continues to pursue these defenses vigorously. The Company continues to believe that it is neither remote nor probable that the Company will incur a loss related to this matter. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company's defense of this matter will be successful. The Company carries insurance for these types of claims and currently believes that a resolution to this claim, in excess of the deductible, would be covered by its insurance. Therefore, the Company does not currently believe that it is reasonably possible that the potential magnitude of the range of any loss would be material to the Company's consolidated financial conditions, results of operations or cash flows. However, there is no guarantee that this claim will be covered by the Company's insurer. A denial of the claim by the insurance provider or a judgment significantly in excess of the Company's insurance coverage could materially and adversely affect its consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, regardless of the outcome of this matter, the matter may divert financial and management resources and result in general business disruption, including that the Company may suffer from adverse publicity that could harm its reputation and negatively impact its stock price. EnerNOC, Inc. (EnerNOC) is a provider of energy management applications, services and products for the smart grid, which include demand response, data-driven energy efficiency, and energy price and risk management applications, services and products. FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Privacy Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that the British Columbia Supreme Court has certified a class action lawsuit launched by a Vancouver woman who claims Facebook is violating its users' privacy. Plaintiff Debbie Douez's lawyer Christoper Rhone says the case revolves around Facebook's January 2011 decision to feature its users in an advertising product called "Sponsored Stories." Through the program, companies pay Facebook a fee so when their business is "liked" by users, that information is published to the users' friends as proof of their endorsement. Mr. Rhone argues no one should be able to use your likeness and name to endorse a product without your permission, claiming it violates B.C.'s Privacy Act. "When their names and portraits are being taken, and put into advertisements for the gain of the company, that's just wrong," Mr. Rhone said. Ms. Douez, a Vancouver videographer, says that's exactly what happened to her. Two years ago she logged on to the Facebook site "Tough Mudders" and clicked on the "like" button because it was the only way to get more information on the fitness company's programs. She also "liked" Ocean Village Resort in Tofino. The next thing she knew, her name and photo were popping up on her friends' Facebook pages endorsing the companies she knew little about. Ms. Douez, who does some marketing work herself, says Facebook is going too far. "I think there's a very fine line to providing a service and manipulating the public. And I think this is a situation where people are being manipulated and in particular, manipulated for commercial gain," she said. Facebook argues users automatically give their consent when they sign up, or when they click "like" or take so-called "social actions" on web pages. Some media reports have suggested you can "opt out" of endorsing sites, but Ms. Douez doubts that. "I did change my privacy settings. In fact, I had the tightest privacy settings that you could have in a profile," she said. "Yet, in this particular case, you are not allowed to opt out." In its ruling authorizing the lawsuit, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Susan Griffin says one of the key questions to be decided is whether B.C. users of social media websites run by a foreign corporation have the protection of the B.C Privacy Act. "Given the almost infinite life and scope of internet images and corresponding scale of harm caused by privacy breaches, BC residents have a significant interest in maintaining some means of policing privacy violations by multi-national internet or social media service providers," Ms. Griffin writes in her 74-page decision. Ms. Griffin says the central issue in the lawsuit is whether Facebook's terms of use and the online tools it provides its users constitute consent to use the person's name or portrait for advertising purposes. Ms. Douez said other B.C. Facebook users are welcome to join the class action suit. FIRST REGIONAL: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA DIVISION BUTTONWOOD TREE VALUE PARTNERS, LP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JACK A. SWEENEY, STEVEN J. SWEENEY, MARILYN J. SWEENEY GARY M. HORGAN, H. ANTHONY GARTSHORE, ELIZABETH THOMPSON, FRED M. EDWARDS, THOMAS MCCULLOUGH, RICHARD E. SCHREIBER, LAWRENCE J. SHERMAN, Defendants. Case No.: 8:10-cv-00537 CJC (MLGx) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: All Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired First Regional Bancorp common stock during the period from January 30, 2007 through January 29, 2010 or subsequently acquired or have been transferred a claim based on such purchases or acquisitions The Court has preliminarily approved a settlement of this Action for $5,500,000. The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and Class Counsel's Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. The Fairness Hearing before Honorable Judge Cormac J. Carney has been scheduled for July 21, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 9B of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana Division, located at 411 W. 4th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701. This Notice contains summary information with respect to the Settlement which will affect your rights if you are a member of the Class. The terms and conditions of the Settlement are set forth in a settlement agreement. You may a more detailed version of the Notice which describes the Action, the Settlement and your rights including the right to make a claim against the Settlement Fund online at www.FirstRegionalBancorpSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Settlement Administrator: First Regional Bancorp Securities Litigation, Settlement Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990. You may also examine the Settlement Agreement and other important documents regarding the settlement online at www.FirtRegionalBancorpSecuritiesSettlement.com If you require any further information, please contact the Settlement Administrator or Class Counsel: Richard D. Greenfield Ilene Freier Brookler GREENFIELD & GOODMAN, LLC 250 Hudson Street - 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 whitehatrdg@earthlink.net Jonathan W. Cuneo Matthew E. Miller CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 jonc@cuneolaw.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE DATED: May 15, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA DIVISION FISH FAMILY: Recalls Milk Products, Cream Due to Undeclared Nuts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fish Family Farm, Inc. of Bolton, CT is voluntarily recalling milk products and cream because as a precautionary measure they may be adulterated with peanut and tree nut (pistachio) allergens. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts or tree nuts (pistachios) run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The products were distributed at Fish Family Farm's retail store in Bolton, CT and at retail stores in Connecticut and Massachusetts. The following FISH FAMILY FARM INC. Dairy Products with a sell by date of 6/23/14 are subject to the recall. The product name is found on product container lid and the sell by date can be found on the top of the bottle. GRADE A WHOLE MILK Pasteurized and Homogenized in a glass half-gallon container GRADE A 2% Reduced Fat Milk Pasteurized and Homogenized in a glass half-gallon container GRADE A FAT FREE SKIM MILK Pasteurized and Homogenized in a glass half-gallon container CHOCOLATE MILK GRADE A PASTEURIZED HOMOGENIZED in a glass half-gallon container GRADE A PASTEURIZED HEAVY CREAM in glass pints, quarts, half- gallons The following Shadow Valley Farms Dairy Products with a sell by date of 6/23/14 are subject to the recall. The product name is found on the container lid and the sell by date can be found on the top of the bottle. WHOLE GRADE A PASTEURIZED HOMOGENIZED MILK in a glass half- gallon container 2% GRADE A PASTEURIZED HOMOGENIZED MILK in a glass half-gallon container FAT FREE GRADE A PASTEURIZED HOMOGENIZED MILK in a glass half- gallon container CHOCOLATE MILK GRADE A, PASTEURIZED, HOMOGENIZED in a glass half-gallon container No other lots or products are affected. No complaints or illnesses have been reported. The dairy products may have become adulterated when they were processed on the same equipment that had previously been used to process products containing peanut butter (peanuts) and tree nuts (pistachios). Consumers are urged not to consume these products and to destroy the products or return them to the retailer where purchased for a refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-860-646- 9745. FORD MOTOR: Colo. Judge Narrows Fuel Economy Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a Colorado federal judge on May 29 largely dismissed a proposed class action accusing Ford Motor Co. of misleading consumers about the fuel efficiency of some of its hybrid vehicles, finding that many of Ford's allegedly false advertisements and claims amounted to no more than unactionable puffery. U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson preserved plaintiff Juan Sanchez's claims that salespeople at a Ford dealership led him to believe the car he purchased would achieve the advertised gas mileage. However, the judge also found that a number of the ads Sanchez claimed were misleading weren't meant to be taken at their word, and that Sanchez can't bring claims on behalf of a class of buyers on ads he never saw. "Mr. Sanchez attempts to save his claims by arguing that other members of the class might have seen and relied upon these statements," Judge Jackson said. "If he cannot sufficiently allege individual injury . . . then he cannot lean on the supposed injuries of other members of the putative class." Mr. Sanchez sued Ford last July, claiming he bought a 2012 MKZ Hybrid from a dealership in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As he was considering which car to buy, dealership staff allegedly told him that he would be able to match the car's advertised fuel efficiency in the course of normal driving. He also saw a number of ads about the 2013 model, which claimed the car could achieve 45 combined miles per gallon, adding that the fuel-economy information was based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates, court records show. Mr. Sanchez also claims he discussed the 2013 model with agents at a Lincoln dealership in Denver, who told him that the new model contained new technology that improved the car's fuel efficiency, and that the car could reach 45 miles per hour through city and highway driving. In his complaint, Mr. Sanchez also pointed to a number of ads that allegedly misrepresented the MKZ's efficiency, but doesn't say he saw them himself, court records show. After buying his car, Mr. Sanchez said it failed to live up to Ford's claims, and accused the company of violating Colorado's Consumer Protection Act, state unfair trade practice laws, breach of express warranty and contract and intentional or negligent misrepresentation, among others, court documents said. Judge Jackson rejected Mr. Sanchez's argument that the Ford agent's statements about technological improvements to the MKZ amounted to misrepresentation, saying "they appear . . . to be nothing more than puffery." Ford argued in its motion to dismiss that Mr. Sanchez's allegations about a graphic claiming the car achieved "45 combined miles per gallon" were preempted by federal law. While Judge Jackson agreed that the graphic itself was preempted because it included an EPA disclaimer, he found that a voice-over combined with it, with phrases like "going places others aren't," was another example of "puffery" that can't be litigated, the ruling said. In a separate motion, Ford moved to strike Mr. Sanchez's class allegations; Judge Jackson invited further input from the parties before he rules on that motion. Mr. Sanchez is represented by Jasper Dudley Ward -- jasper@jonesward.com -- of Jones Ward PLC and by Kurt M. Zaner of Zaner Harden Law LLP. Ford is represented by Edward Craig Stewart -- stewart@wtotrial.com -- and Theresa R. Wardon -- wardon@wtotrial.com -- of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP and by Jodi Munn Schebel of Dickinson Wright PLLC. The case is Sanchez v. Ford Motor Company, case number 1:13-cv- 01924, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. FRUITLAND AMERICAN: Recalls Ribeye and Carcass Products ------------------------------------------------------- Fruitland American Meat, a Jackson, Mo. establishment is recalling approximately 4,012 pounds of fresh beef products because the dorsal root ganglia may not have been completely removed, which is not compliant with agency regulations that require their removal in cattle 30 months of age and older, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products subject to recall include: 40-lb. cases containing two, roughly 20-lb. cryovac packages of bone-in "Rain Crow Ranch Ribeye" bearing the establishment number "EST. 2316" inside the USDA mark of inspection with the following production dates: 9/5/13, 9/10/13, 9/11/13, 9/26/13, 10/2/13, 10/3/2013, 11/8/13, 11/22/13, 12/17/13, 12/26/13, 12/27/13,1/16/14, 1/17/14, 1/23/14, 1/31/14, 2/13/14, 2/14/14, 2/21/14, 2/28/14, 3/8/14, 3/20/14, 4/4/14 or 4/25/14 printed on the box. Quartered beef carcasses stamped with the USDA mark of inspection and establishment number "EST. 2316." The products were produced and packaged on various dates between September 2013 and April 2014. The bone-in ribeye roasts were the source material of concern. Fruitland American Meat advises that the bone-in ribeye roasts were distributed to a restaurant in New York, NY, and a Whole Foods distribution center in Connecticut which services its stores in New England. The quartered carcasses were distributed to an FSIS-inspected establishment in Missouri for further processing and distribution, and to a restaurant in Kansas City, Mo. All products would have been processed into smaller cuts with no identifying consumer packaging. The problem was discovered by FSIS during a review of company slaughter logs. The problem may have occurred as a result of the way some company employees were recording information and determining the age of various cattle. Dorsal root ganglia, branches of the nervous system located in the vertebral column are considered specified risk materials (SRMs) and must be removed from cattle 30 months of age and older in accordance with FSIS regulations. SRMs are tissues that may contain the infective agent in cattle infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), as well as materials that are closely associated with these potentially infective tissues. Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from use as human food to minimize potential human exposure to the BSE agent. Every animal received ante-mortem inspection by an FSIS Public Health Veterinarian. This involves observing each animal at rest and in motion and there is no indication that any of the cattle slaughtered displayed any signs of BSE. FSIS and Fruitland American Meat have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact company sales manager James Fortner at 573-243-3107. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at askkaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888- 674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. GREENSMOOTHIEGIRL: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Seed Powder ------------------------------------------------------------ GreenSmoothieGirl is voluntarily recalling two products which contain Organic Sprouted Chia Powder due to possible health risks related to Salmonella contamination. Company CEO, Robyn Openshaw, states, "To date, there have been no reports of sickness traced back to our products, but we have chosen to exert the utmost level of caution in this situation to protect the health and well-being of our customers. We are, therefore, voluntarily recalling products that contain organic sprouted chia powder." The affected products include: GreenSmoothieGirl Sprouted Ground TriOmega Superfood, 16 oz, UPC 853811005036 with lot number AC030141, Exp. 1/2016 (Silver Ziplock Pouch) GreenSmoothieGirl Sprouted Ground TriOmega Superfood, 16 oz, no UPC, with lot number BIO13TOP300, Exp. 10/2015 (Gold Ziplock Pouch) The lot numbers associated with the recall were distributed in retail stores in UT, OR, MT and directly to consumers throughout the US via GreenSmoothieGirl.com. The company is committed to resolving this recall quickly and efficiently. "GreenSmoothieGirl is committed to providing quality products to consumers and we stand by that commitment in issuing this recall. We do not take the health of our valued customers lightly," Openshaw said. Consumers who have purchased this item and have unopened or partially used packages are encouraged to discontinue any use of the product and return it to the store where originally purchased. Consumers who have questions or who purchased directly from GreenSmoothieGirl are encouraged to contact the company via the dedicated recall email provided below. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. For more information visit GreenSmoothieGirl.com. Email -- gsgchiarecall2014@gmail.com Recall Hotline - 435-625-1596 GROWLIFE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of GrowLife, Inc. common stock between November 14, 2013 and April 9, 2014, inclusive. Investors who purchased GrowLife common stock during the Class Period may move the Court to appoint them as lead plaintiff, no later than June 17, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Investors in GrowLife who wish to discuss this action or the lead plaintiff selection process may contact Berger & Montague, P.C., toll free at 1-888-891-2289, or by e-mail at elechtzin@bm.net A copy of the class action complaint can be viewed on Berger & Montague, P.C.'s website at www.bergermontague.com or may be requested from the Court. The case is Wolf v. GrowLife, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-04112. Background on the GrowLife Securities Class Action GrowLife develops, markets and deploys products and services addressing the needs of legal cannabis growing and retail operations, including hydroponic growing equipment and retail support software. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants had valued GrowLife shares issued to company insiders at far below then-current market prices, and concealed and underreported the actual value of such payments; (2) defendants had provided inaccurate and/or inadequate information in GrowLife's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") about the stock-based compensation it paid to its current and former officers and directors; (3) defendants' improper valuations of stock-based compensation to insiders caused GrowLife's publicly reported financials to be materially misstated and in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) defendants had engaged in manipulative transactions involving GrowLife common stock, including substantial insider stock sales immediately before the SEC suspending trading in the company's securities. On April 10, 2014, the SEC temporarily halted trading of GrowLife securities, stating that "[t]he Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of PHOT because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace and potentially manipulative transactions in PHOT's common stock." When trading of the Company's stock resumed on April 25, 2014, the price of GrowLife shares dropped $0.29 per share, or 58% from a previous closing price of $0.50 on April 9, 2014, to close at $0.21 per share on April 25, 2014, on extremely high trading volume. About Berger & Montague, P.C. Berger & Montague, P.C., with over 50 attorneys, represents plaintiffs in complex and class action litigation. The firm has played lead roles in major cases for over 40 years, resulting in recoveries of billions of dollars for its clients and the classes they represent. For more information, please contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 1-888-891-2289 or 215-875-3038 Email: elechtzin@bm.net HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Dismisses Smedt's Second Amended Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward J. Davila, in an order dated May 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/rGKlEdfrom Leagle.com granted a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in the case captioned SUZANNE SMEDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-03029-EJD, (N.D. Cal.). Ms. Smedt filed this putative class action against Hain Celestial alleging that several of Defendant's products have been improperly labeled so as to amount to misbranding and deception in violation of several California and federal laws. The Plaintiff asserts claims regarding eleven products she did not buy. Specifically, the Plaintiff argues that these representations on the packaging of the Defendant's food products were unlawful and/or misleading: (1) "no trans fat" (2) "evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") and (3) "all natural." According to Judge Davila, the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims as to unpurchased products and the claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff's claims regarding evaporated cane juice as well as claims for unpurchased products are dismissed without prejudice, he added. Suzanne Smedt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore -- pgore@prattattorneys.com -- Pratt & Associates & Charles F. Barrett -- charles@cfbfirm.com -- Charles Barrett, P.C.. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by William Lewis Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Sprouted Chia Seed Powder ------------------------------------------------- Health Matters America Inc. of Cheektowaga, New York is voluntarily recalling Organic Traditions Sprouted Chia Seed Powder and Sprouted Chia/Flax Seed Powder due to possible Salmonella contamination. Health Matters America has taken immediate action to voluntarily recall Organic Traditions Sprouted Chia Seed Powder and Sprouted Chia/Flax Seed Powder in order to ensure the safety of its customers. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses. The products included in this voluntary recall include: ORGANIC TRADITIONS SPROUTED CHIA SEED POWDER Lot numbers BIO13SBCS275, BIO13SBCS290, BIO14SBCS290, BIO13SBCS310, BIO13SBCS330, BIO13SBCS353, BIO13SBCS364; NET WT. 8 oz. UPC 854260006162, and NET WT. 16 oz. UPC 854260005462; and cartons containing 50 LB. bulk bags; ORGANIC TRADITIONS SPROUTED CHIA & FLAX SEED POWDER Lot numbers BIO13SFCB273, BIO13SFCB288, BIO13SFCB305, BIO13SFCB310, BIO13SFCB345, BIO13SFCB350; NET WT. 8 oz. UPC 854260006216, and NET WT. 16 oz. UPC 854260005479; and cartons containing 50 LB. bulk bags; Organic Traditions Sprouted Chia seed powder and Organic Traditions Sprouted Chia & Flax seed powder were sold to distributors, retailers, and through internet sales in the following states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. No other Organic Traditions products are affected by this recall. Consumers that have purchased any of these products with the stated lot numbers are asked not to consume the product and discard it or return the product to the original point of purchase. Health Matters America is working closely with the FDA on this matter. Health Matters America is committed to the highest quality food products with a mandate to provide nutrient-dense, organic foods for the optimal well-being of its customers. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-343- 3278, ext. 730, Monday - Friday, 9am -5pm ET. HENRICO COUNTY, VA: Firefighters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Weymouth and James Redford, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. County of Henrico, Virginia, Case No. 3:14-cv-00419-REP (E.D. Va., June 6, 2014), is brought on behalf of those who are or were employed with the title of "Captain" within the Henrico Fire Department. The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime for the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated under the federal law, which establishes the overtime compensation due to fire fighters and other emergency responders based on the duties performed and irrespective of job title. The Henrico Fire Department is the primary fire, rescue and emergency services agency in the County of Henrico, Virginia, providing municipal fire prevention and suppression and other tasks. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Philip Justus Dean, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC 707 East Main Street, Suite 1025 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-0808 Facsimile: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com pdean@curwoodlaw.com - and - Harris Dewey Butler, III, Esq. Zev Hillel Antell, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 648-6814 E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com zev.antell@butlerroyals.com HOMETOWN BUFFET: Removed "Del Campo" Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The purported class action lawsuit captioned Berta Martin Del Campo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, et al., Case No. BC538899, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04378 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm. The Defendants are represented by: Shannon R. Boyce, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: sboyce@littler.com IMECA HIALEAH: Never Paid Extra Half Time OT Rate, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Gregorio Blanco Chirino and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Imeca Hialeah, L.L.C., Imeca II, L.L.C., Imeca Payroll, LLC, and Tony Cocchiola, Case No. 1:14-cv-22107-UU (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2014), alleges that the Plaintiff worked an average of 51.5 hours a week for the Defendants but was never paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Imeca Hialeah, L.L.C., IMECA II, L.L.C., and Imeca Payroll, LLC are limited liability companies that regularly transact business within Dade County. Tony Cocchiola is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Corporate Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM INFOBLOX INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Infoblox, Inc. common stock during a class period of September 6, 2013 to February 10, 2014. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and names Infoblox, Inc., Robert Thomas (Chief Executive Officer), and Remo Canessa (Chief Financial Officer) as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that defendants falsely lauded Infoblox as a financially successful company, repeatedly emphasizing the company's strong revenues and proclaiming that the company was entering "fiscal 2014 with significant momentum and expect[ed] [2014] to be another year of strong execution," when, in fact, Infoblox had secretly implemented enormous discounting in order to maintain market share, and was failing to close on big-ticket deals that had previously driven its revenue growth. While defendants were falsely touting Infoblox's financial strength, Infoblox insiders sold $21.25 million of their personal holdings of Infoblox common stock. If you purchased Infoblox, Inc. (BLOX) common stock between September 6, 2013 and February 10, 2014, you may, no later than July 29, 2014, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation, and you must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff. To learn more about the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of the complaint, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mark C. Gardy at Gardy & Notis, LLP, Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, New York, NY 10022, Telephone: 212-905-0509, Fax: 212-905-0508, email: mgardy@gardylaw.com CONTACT: Mark C. Gardy GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56 126 East 56th Street New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212-905-0509 Fax: 212-905-0508 E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com Website: www.gardylaw.com INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant in Two Shareholder Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two purported shareholder class actions alleging Securities Act violations were filed against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014. The lawsuits allege that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9, 2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo. The plaintiffs in each suit seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the cases and to be appointed as the lead plaintiff. Those motions are currently pending before the Court. Additional complaints may be filed against the Company and its directors and officers related to its disclosures. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of these lawsuits or whether the outcome will be material to the Company. Therefore, the Company has not accrued for any loss contingencies related to these lawsuits. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of therapeutics to treat chronic liver diseases utilizing its bile acid chemistry. J2 GLOBAL: Trial in Amended TCPA Complaint Set for Jan. 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------ An existing purported class action against j2 Global, Inc., alleging, among other things, violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, is set for trial in late January 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Company ("Paldo"), filed an amended complaint adding j2 Global, j2 Canada, and a former j2 Canada employee, Tyler Eyamie ("Eyamie"), as additional defendants in an existing purported class action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The amended complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common law conversion, arising from a customer's alleged use of the j2 Canada system to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. On August 23, 2013, Paldo filed a second amended complaint to add a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"). j2 Global and j2 Canada filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. Paldo and Sabon seek statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief for the remaining TCPA claims. Eyamie filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was granted on March 11, 2014. The discovery period commenced on April 17, 2014, and will close in August 2015. The case is set for trial in late January 2016. j2 Global, Inc. is a provider of services delivered through the Internet. The Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises. The Company operates in two segments: Business Cloud Services and Digital Media. The Company's Digital Media business segment consists of the Web properties and business operations of Ziff Davis, Inc. (Ziff Davis). The Company's cloud services and solutions include fax, voice and unified communications, email and customer relationship management, online backup, global network and operations, and customer support services. In February 2013, it acquired IGN Entertainment, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Critical Software Ltd., the United Kingdom-based Email Security and Management company operating under the brand name iCritical. J2 GLOBAL: Moved to Dismiss Amended eFax(R) Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc., filed a motion on April 7, 2014, to dismiss an amended complaint alleging, among other things, breach of contract due to the users' difficulties in the cancellation of their eFax(R) online fax accounts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On December 16, 2013, Anthony Jenkins filed a purported class action against "j2 Global, carrying on business as eFax" in the Central District of California. An amended complaint was filed on March 18, 2014 adding two named plaintiffs. The amended complaint includes causes of action for breach of contract, several state statutory violations and conversion. The claims arose either out of alleged difficulties some users encountered in canceling their eFax(R) online fax accounts or out of j2 Global allegedly being unjustly enriched and converting users' funds. The potential class representatives are seeking damages, statutory damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class of persons allegedly similarly situated. On April 7, 2014, j2 Global filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have yet to file a responsive pleading to the motion to dismiss. j2 Global, Inc. is a provider of services delivered through the Internet. The Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises. The Company operates in two segments: Business Cloud Services and Digital Media. The Company's Digital Media business segment consists of the Web properties and business operations of Ziff Davis, Inc. (Ziff Davis). The Company's cloud services and solutions include fax, voice and unified communications, email and customer relationship management, online backup, global network and operations, and customer support services. In February 2013, it acquired IGN Entertainment, Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Critical Software Ltd., the United Kingdom-based Email Security and Management company operating under the brand name iCritical. KRAFT FOODS: Removed "Morales" Class Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Claudia Morales, et al. v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., et al., Case No. BC545131, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-04387-JAK-PJW to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul D. Stevens, Esq. Shireen Mohsenzadegan, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: pstevens@milsteinadelman.com smohsenzadegan@milsteinadelman.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 950 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 917-1030 Facsimile: (310) 917-1001 E-mail: rclarkson@redlawllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Kelly Marie Morrison, Esq. Kenneth K. Lee, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: kmorrison@jenner.com klee@jenner.com LA FINQUITA: Recalls Cheese Product Due to Undeclared Peanuts ------------------------------------------------------------- La Finquita, LLC of Stamford, CT is voluntarily recalling one lot of La Finquita Quesito Fresco Campesino Fresh Farmer's Cheese, as a precautionary measure, because it may be adulterated with peanuts and tree nuts (pistachios). People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts or tree nuts (pistachios) run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The product was distributed through retail stores in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. The product is labeled as La Finquita Quesito Fresco Campesino / Fresh Farmer's Cheese. The product is packaged in a 14.11oz. plastic container, UPC Code: 0 94922 76809 4, with sell by date 06/28/14. No other products are affected by this recall. The recall was initiated after being informed by our milk supplier, that the milk used to manufacture the cheese may be contaminated with peanuts and tree nuts (pistachios). No complaints or associated illnesses have been reported. Consumers are urged not to consume these products and to destroy the products or return them to the retailer where purchased for a refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (203)561-8140 / (203)561-3929 LANSAL INC: Recalls Egg White Salad With Chives Due To Listeria --------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared foods manufacturer, Lansal, Inc.(d.b.a. Hot Mama's Foods), announced that as a precaution it is voluntarily recalling 304 containers (approximately 114 pounds) of Trader Joe's Egg White Salad with Chives packaged in 6-ounce plastic containers due to concerns about possible Listeria monocytogenes, an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The recalled Egg White Salad with Chives was distributed to Trader Joe's grocery stores in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio & Wisconsin. The voluntary recall applies to product in a 6 ounce, plastic container with UPC # 00666695 and a SELL BY Date of JUN 10, 2014, stamped on the edge of the lid. The potential for contamination was found during a routine testing by the Company. No illnesses have been reported. Lansal, Inc. has contacted the retailer and distributors instructing them to remove all affected product from sale and is working with the appropriate agencies including state Departments of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and local authorities. Consumers who have purchased the product code are urged not to eat it and to dispose of it or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with any questions may call toll free (877) 877-907-7508 from 8:00A.M. to 8:00P.M. Central Daylight Time, 7 days a week. MOTEL 6: Judgment Reserved on Appeal Bond Bid in "Gould" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A California court on November 5, 2013, granted final approval of a class action settlement in MONICA GOULD ET AL v. MOTEL 6 INC. ET AL, NO. 2:09-CV-08157-CAS(FMOX), (C.D. Cal.). On December 16, 2013, classmembers Natalia S. Absey and Vera Moscaliuc (the objectors) filed a motion to reconsider and/or vacate the Court's order granting final approval. On January 10, 2014, the Court denied the objectors' motion, and subsequently denied the objectors' motion to amend the Court's order denying their motion to reconsider and/or vacate. The Objectors appealed. The Plaintiffs moved, on May 8, 2014, for an order requiring objectors to post an appeal bond. On May 22, 2014, the objectors filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs' motion for an appeal bond. Judge Christina A. Snyder finds that, as a general matter, an appeal bond is appropriate. "Accordingly, if plaintiffs wish to seek a bond based on their anticipated Rule 39(e) costs, plaintiffs may . . . lodge a declaration with this Court setting forth their expected costs, if any. At that point the Court will determine if a bond should be required, and if so, in what amount," she says. The Court reserved judgment on the plaintiffs' motion for an appeal bond. The Court also denied the objectors' motion to strike. A copy of Judge Snyder's May 29, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/btYeZQfrom Leagle.com. Monica Gould, Plaintiff, represented by Farzad Rastegar, Rastegar & Matern, Matthew John Matern, Matern Law Group & Thomas Stephen Campbell, Rastegar & Matern. Patricia Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. Thomas Stephen Campbell, Esq. Rastegar & Matern. 1010 Crenshaw Blvd #100 Torrance, CA 90501 Telephone: (310) 218-5500 - and - Matthew John Matern, Esq. Matern Law Group 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Rosalinda Barragan, Plaintiff, represented by Farzad Rastegar, Rastegar & Matern, Matthew John Matern, Matern Law Group & Thomas Stephen Campbell, Rastegar & Matern. Accor North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Michael F Marino, III, Esq. Rocio Herrera, Esq. Timothy Michael Rusche, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw LLP Los Angeles - Downtown 333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facisimile: (213) 270-9601 - and - Christiane Autumn Roussell, Esq. M Brett Burns, Esq. Hunton and Williams LLP e-mail: croussell@hunton.com mbrettburns@hunton.com Motel 6 Operating L.P., Defendant, represented by Michael F Marino, III, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Rocio Herrera, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christiane Autumn Roussell, Hunton & Williams LLP & M Brett Burns, Hunton and Williams LLP. MR. G'S: Exotic Dancers Seek Class Action Status for Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Miller, writing for PennLive, reports that four exotic dancers who claim an East Shore club violated the law by making them live on tips alone are asking a federal judge to grant class action status to their lawsuit against Mr. G's Entertainment Inc. If Judge John E. Jones III agrees, the wage lawsuit the quartet is pursuing in U.S. Middle District Court would be opened to any dancer who worked within the last three years at Club 22, a Mr. G's establishment on Jonestown Road in Harrisburg. Mr. G. is opposing the class action request by Nashanda Watson, Jacqulene Carter, Talya Blackwell-Young and Alexis Harr. Ms. Watson launched the legal assault in December by filing the lawsuit and claiming Mr. G's broke the law by not paying its entertainers even the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. She and the other plaintiffs, who joined the lawsuit in the past few months, contend that dancers received no pay from the club and were expected to share any tips they received from customers with disc jockeys and pay a "house fee." Also, the dancers argue that they should have been paid overtime, when they worked more than a 40-hour week. Mr. G's has replied to the lawsuit by claiming the dancers are "independent contractors," not club employees, and that minimum wage and overtime laws therefore do not apply. The women claim they were in fact employees of the club since it set rules for their attendance, deportment and performances, including a requirement that they change positions at least every 30 seconds during their acts. In arguing for class-action status, Dean R. Fuchs and Lori K. Serratelli, the attorneys for the women, cite cases in other states where that status was granted to wage lawsuits lodged by entertainers in adult clubs. If that status is approved for the Mr. G's case, they want the court to order the club to provide names and contact information for all dancers who would be eligible to join the lawsuit. They also want Jones to require that notice of the class action be posted prominently in the dressing room of Club 22. "All entertainers perform the same primary job duties -- to entertain Club 22's customers by dancing on stage, performing personal dances for customers, and spending time with customers in semi-private rooms," a memorandum filed by Fuchs and Serratelli states. Court filings indicate that three more dancers have filed notice that they intend to join the case. Those filings don't indicate how many others might be eligible to jump in if class action status is granted. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wants to Delay O'Bannon Anti-Trust Trial ---------------------------------------------------------- Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the National Collegiate Athletic Association has made yet another late bid to delay the trial of a class-action, anti-trust lawsuit concerning the use of college athletes' names, images and likenesses, as well as the limits on what athletes can receive for playing sports. The trial, which involves plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, was scheduled to begin June 9 in U.S. District Court in Oakland. On May 29, however, lawyers for the association -- in what they classified as an emergency petition -- asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to: -- Require District Judge Claudia Wilken to vacate her order scheduling the O'Bannon anti-trust trial to begin June 9. -- Issue its own order that the trial in the anti-trust lawsuit be held no earlier than a trial in a related, but now separate lawsuit, concerning the depiction of athletes in video games. The video-games case, which involves plaintiffs led by former Arizona State and Nebraska football player Sam Keller, has been scheduled for late March 2015. The NCAA's petition asked the appeals court to rule by 8:30 a.m. (Pacific Time) on June 9, when the O'Bannon trial is set to convene, but the trial could begin and then be halted by the appeals court. This is the fifth filing the NCAA has made in the past five weeks that has sought to delay and/or redefine a case that is nearing trial almost five years after it began. One of the previous four motions also was made with the 9th Circuit, and a three-judge panel rejected it without comment. At issue in this bid is the NCAA's contention that there are issues overlapping issues between the Keller case, which includes a monetary damages claim and would involve a jury trial, and the O'Bannon case, which has been narrowed to a bid for an injunction that will be decided Judge Wilken in what is known as a bench trial. The NCAA is arguing that elements of the O'Bannon case related to video games will have to be heard by the jury in the Keller case, so a ruling that Judge Wilken makes in the O'Bannon case could affect how a jury rules in Keller case. That, claims the NCAA, would result in a violation of its Seventh Amendment right to an un-encumbered jury hearing of its side in the Keller case before Judge Wilken rules in the O'Bannon case. This line of argument rose from maneuvering that occurred two weeks ago, just before a deadline for the NCAA and the O'Bannon plaintiffs to file certain pre-trial materials with Judge Wilken. Up to that point, in addition to the injunction, lawyers for the plaintiffs had been seeking to pursue individual monetary damages for the roughly 20 named plaintiffs. That would have meant a trial involving both a jury deciding the monetary damages claim and Wilken ruling on the injunction (only judges can grant injunctions). Also up to that point, the Keller case had been joined with the O'Bannon case, even though -- as a practical matter -- it was a separate proceeding. The Keller case involves a legal theory involving personalities' right to control the use of their names, images and likenesses, also known as the right of publicity. It also is focused almost entirely on video games, while the O'Bannon case is an anti-trust action involving video games and an array of other ways in which athletes' names and likenesses are used in college sports marketing, merchandising and broadcasting. However, just before the deadline, the plaintiffs decided not to pursue the individual claims, which meant the case would be decided solely by Judge Wilken, who last week formally separated the Keller case from the O'Bannon case, rejected the NCAA's Seventh Amendment argument and ordered the trial to begin in the O'Bannon case as scheduled. "The petition filed [] with the Court of Appeals makes clear the NCAA's serious concerns about potential violations of the Constitution resulting from the plaintiffs' last-minute maneuvering to obtain a bench trial," the NCAA's chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement. "While the NCAA does not take this step lightly, it could not abandon its right to a jury trial without seeking further review." The O'Bannon plaintiffs' lead attorney, Michael Hausfeld, told USA TODAY Sports that the NCAA's move was "a final grasp to avoid a trial before the court on June 9. It is directly contradictory to the position asserted by the NCAA when it opposed consolidation of the O'Bannon and Keller cases (much earlier in the proceedings). It also seems to reflect an attitude of the association that it can say whatever it wants to any court, as long as it doesn't say the same thing to the same court." NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued for Capping Value of Athletic Scholarships ----------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Harris, writing for The State Journal, reports that the National Collegiate Athletic Association is under fire again, this time by a former West Virginia University football player who contends the athletic scholarships awarded by member schools fall short of the actual cost of attendance. Nick Kindler, an offensive lineman from 2009-13, filed an antitrust class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and its member conferences, the Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC, claiming they agreed to unlawfully cap the value of athletic scholarships. The suit seeks to represent former NCAA Division I football bowl subdivision scholarship players from February 2010 on. Mr. Kindler is represented by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sopol Shapiro, which also represents Kindler's former teammate, Shawne Alston, who filed a similar suit in March. The suit complains that college athletes "are essentially working full-time football jobs and going to school." "The NCAA and Power Conference defendants have studied and acknowledged that a so-called 'full ride' scholarship does not cover the full cost of attending school," it stated. "Athletes are often a few thousand dollars short for the typical expenses of a student. These costs include money for gas, food and other necessities (while) the average salary for major college football coaches is over $2 million, with some coaches earning over $7 million. The top football schools earn enormous amounts from football." The complaint says the NCAA and its member conferences "unlawfully cap the value" of athletic scholarships: substantially below what a player would receive for his services in a competitive market, and at an amount below what it costs to attend school." It quotes NCAA President Mark Emmert as acknowledging the inadequacy of the grant-in-aid to athletes in a December 2013 interview in which he said they've "been working on that for 2.5 years. They were talking about that long before I showed up. We don't need a lawsuit to do the right thing. That's important for people to know." It also points out that NCAA created the problem when it imposed a cap on grants-in-aid in 1956 and by subsequently removing the cost-of-attendance stipend in 1976. "Despite the NCAA's public comments concerning the needs of college athletes, the collusive cap on grants-in-aid remains in place," the suit states, adding that the cap "has imposed a lower standard of living and significant hardship" on the athletes, who it says have much less time and ability to earn money through part-time jobs than do other students. The suit points out total revenue for the 242 Division I schools in 2011 was "well over $3 billion, with the majority coming from the 120 Football Bowl subdivision schools." It also pointed out that some conference leaders have argued in favor of the NCAA allowing them the autonomy to give athletes stipends to plug the gap between their scholarship and the actual cost of attendance. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses the NCAA and its members agencies of conspiring to violate antitrust laws and restraining free trade, and seeks an injunction barring the NCAA from enforcing the cap and a declaratory judgment voiding the cap as well as unspecified damages, pointing out that athletes "have been promised by their colleges and coaches that their educational pursuits will be fully supported with a 'full' scholarship, but, despite record revenues, they have never fully funded this promise. This leaves most players and their families unprepared for the financial demands that they must address." It suggests NCAA and member schools have "reasonable, and less restrictive alternatives" open to them, including offering athletes competitive financial aid packages from which to choose. "Such incremental competition would allay the fears (even though unfounded) of those that decry the repercussions of an instantaneous transition to a wide-open free market, with every school making its own independent decisions," it said. Without the NCAA restrictions, the suit says schools "would compete for heavily recruited athletes like Kindler and pay at least the full cost of attendance." It seeks an injunction to prohibit any agreement on capping GIAs below the cost of attendance and past damages for players who had to pay the difference between their scholarship and the cost of attendance as a result of the agreement. It also sees unspecified damages, plus attorney fees and court costs. A statement issued by Hagens Berman quotes Kindler as saying change is "long overdue." "From early on in my college playing career, I noticed that players very often got the short end of the stick on a number of basic issues," he said. "The only answer I could get as to why was, 'That's how the system is.' "I hope that now I can help change that NCAA system for the better. It's the right thing to do." Ms. Kindler graduated from WVU with an undergraduate degree in criminology and investigations, a master's in legal studies and an estimated $15,000 in student debt. He's currently working to complete an additional graduate certificate in non-profit management at WVU, the suit stated. An NCAA spokesman could not be reached for comment by press time. NATIONAL UNION: Sued Over Group Disability Insurance in Louisiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Watson and Maria Watson, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a Putative Class v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, American International Group, Inc., d/b/a AIG Insurance Trust, for the Account of HealthExtras, HealthExtras, Inc., Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc., Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, HealthExtras, LLC, Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., Alliant Services Houston, Inc., and Virginia Surety Company, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01312 (E.D. La., June 6, 2014), arises from the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct toward the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in Louisiana and the United States of America. The Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct included a scheme, which involved fraudulent advertising, marketing, and sale of purported group disability insurance to Louisiana residents, who were not members of any group for which the insurance product was authorized. The Plaintiffs contend that this purported insurance coverage was marketed and sold to Louisiana residents for over a decade, despite the knowledge by each Defendant that the product was illegal and that the purported insurance coverage held pursuant to the Scheme is fraudulent and illusory because there was no intention to pay claims under that purported coverage. New York-based National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A., is a Pennsylvania corporation and has done business at all relevant times in the state of Louisiana. National Union was owned by American International Group, Inc. and now is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chartis U.S., Inc. National Union is licensed as an insurance company and underwriter in the state of Louisiana and the United States of America. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen J. Herman, Esq. Soren E. Gisleson, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Facsimile: (504) 561-6024 E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com - and - Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS, PLLC 5613 Duraleigh Road, Suite 151 PO Box 90698 Raleigh, NC 27675 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 Facsimile: (919) 277-0162 E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com - and - Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq. THE AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM 1772 Platt Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 215-9873 Facsimile: (334) 213-5663 E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com NAVITAS NATURALS: Recalls Organic Sprouted Chia Powder Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Navitas Naturals(c), the Superfood Company(TM), announced an expansion of its voluntary and precautionary recall to include additional expiration dates of products containing Organic Sprouted Chia Powder, due to the possible presence of Salmonella. "Based on investigations by FDA and California Department of Public Health, one of our suppliers Health Matters America Inc. has expanded their recall of Chia products. As a result, we are expanding our voluntary recall to include a broader date range of products. Our business depends on providing safe and healthy food and we will not take chances with our consumer's wellbeing. Because of this priority, in an abundance of caution, we have deliberately and voluntarily expanded this recall" stated Zach Adelman, Chief Executive Officer of Navitas Naturals. Based on information from CDC we are not aware of any reported illnesses associated with the products included in this expanded date range. The affected products were distributed nationally and include: Navitas Naturals Organic Sprouted Chia Powder, 8oz, UPC 858847000369 all best by dates up to and including 11/22/2015 Navitas Naturals Omega Blend Sprouted Smoothie Mix, 8oz, UPC 858847000314 all best by dates up to and including 11/05/2015 Williams-Sonoma Omega 3 Smoothie Mixer, 8 oz, SKU 506436 all best by dates up to and including OC 2015 No other Navitas Naturals products are affected by this recall. "We are continuing to work hand-in-hand with the FDA and California Department of Public Health. We take our responsibility to consumers very seriously and we are taking immediate actions within our supply chain and with our own quality assurance protocols to ensure this does not happen again" stated Adelman. Consumers who have purchased either of these products are urged to not eat the products, and to dispose of them or return them to the store where they were originally purchased. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses. Customers with questions or who would like product replacements or refunds may contact 888-886-3879. OCEAN SPRAY: Recalls Limited Quantity of Dried Cranberries ---------------------------------------------------------- Ocean Spray announced it has taken the precautionary measure of voluntarily recalling two production lots of Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries because the products may contain yogurt covered peanuts. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The following 8-ounce pouches of Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries are part of this recall: UPC # 31200 03719 Best By Dates Feb 10, 2015 and Feb 11, 2015 The products were distributed to retail stores in the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin. We received three consumer complaints that the product contained peanuts, but no associated illnesses were reported. The recalled products were produced by a co-packer in Chicago and no other Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries or Ocean Spray(R) products are affected by the recall. Our co-packer has reported some yogurt covered peanuts have been packaged along with Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries on two production dates in February. Ocean Spray has worked with the co-packer to identify the issue and we're confident that this is an isolated incident and the problem has been corrected. Although the packaging does contain a warning that the product is made on equipment that also processes nuts, Ocean Spray issued the voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution to ensure the safety of our consumers. This recall affects a very small amount of our Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries and we have not received any reports of allergic reactions. If you purchased Ocean Spray(R) Greek Yogurt Covered Craisins(R) Dried Cranberries with the UPC code and sell by dates and have a concern about peanut allergies, please save or take a picture of the UPC label and best by date and contact the Ocean Spray Consumer Hotline at 1-800-662-3263, weekdays 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, for a coupon replacement. Please then destroy the product. OCWEN FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fees Assessed on Borrowers' Accounts --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Lou Vega, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a Florida corporation, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:14-cv-04408 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2014), concerns alleged fraudulent practices committed by Ocwen in connection with its home mortgage loan servicing business. Taking advantage of the economic downturn and the increasing number of loans in default, Ocwen services loans according to uniform practices designed to maximize fees assessed on borrowers' accounts when they are behind on their payments, Ms. Vega asserts. Ocwen Financial Corporation is a Florida corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is Delaware limited liability company, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation and is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida. Ocwen Loan Servicing is licensed to service mortgage loans in all 50 states, including California, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Alberstone, Esq. Roland Tellis, Esq. Mark Pifko, Esq. Michael Isaac Miller, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com mpifko@baronbudd.com imiller@baronbudd.com - and - Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Esq. David A. Parsiola, Esq. COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR, L.L.C. 8397 Highway 23, Suite 100 Belle Chasse, LA 70037 Telephone: (504) 394-9000 Facsimile: (504) 394-9110 E-mail: pcossich@cossichlaw.com dparsiola@cossichlaw.com OLDE THOMPSON: Recalls Kirkland Malabar Pepper Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olde Thompson Inc. Oxnard, CA is recalling to the consumer level Kirkland Signature Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper 12.7 OZ Plastic Jars with a Best Before date of 03/2017 and Lot #: OT 065099, OT 065169, OT 065254, OT 065255, OT 065256, and OT 065284, due to possible contamination by Salmonella. This recall is being undertaken with the knowledge of the FDA. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses. The recalled product is identified and distributed as follows: Kirkland Signature Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper 12.7 OZ Plastic Jars UPC code: 096619164998 Sold exclusively at Costco Wholesale Club nationwide between April 4, 2014 and June 4, 2014 The recall affects 5,153 cases of recalling Kirkland Signature Coarse Ground Malabar Pepper 12.7 OZ Plastic Jars with a Best Before date of 03/2017 and Lot #: OT 065099, OT 065169, OT 065254, OT 065255, OT 065256, and OT 065284 located below the back label. The bacterium was discovered during routine FDA sampling of consumer products. If you have the recalled product, please do not consume it. Please dispose of the recalled product and its container. Customers who have purchased these products and have any questions should contact an Olde Thompson Customer Care Representative at 1- 844-568-5555 between the hours of 8:30AM and 8:00PM CST. ON TRAC: Removed "Tirado" Suit to Southern District of Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit titled Tirado v. On Trac Rent A Car, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-009914-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv- 22096-MGC to the proceeding. The Complaint includes a count for alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs' overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, and one count for retaliatory discharge under the FLSA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jsr@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Carmen Rodriguez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Palmetto Bay Centre 15715 South Dixie Highway, Suite 411 Miami, FL 33157 Telephone: (305) 254-6101 Facsimile: (305) 254-6048 E-mail: crlaborlaw@gmail.com OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: July Class Action Deal Objection Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. and its affiliated debtors and court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action styled In re OSG Securities Litigation, Master File No. 12-cv-07948-SAS (S.D.N.Y.), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 20, 2014, entered into a stipulation providing for settlement and resolution of Lead Plaintiffs' claims against the Debtors pursuant to the alternative plan of reorganization. The Plan has the support of certain holders of existing equity interests of the Company representing approximately 30% of the existing common stock of OSG. On May 23, the Court approved those stipulations. The Court also has preliminarily certified the putative class for the purposes of the settlement. The lead plaintiffs are Stichting Pensioenfonds DSM Nederland, Indiana Treasuer of State and Lloyd Crawford. As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 26, 2014, pursuant to the Securities Class Stipulation, the Debtors have agreed to provide in the Amended Equity Plan for allowance of the Lead Plaintiffs' claims, on behalf of a class of persons who, between October 29, 2007 and October 19, 2012, purchased (i) 8.125% Senior Notes due 2018 issued or traceable to the $300 million public offering on or about March 24, 2010 or (ii) OSG common stock. The claims will be allowed, in full, final and complete settlement of any claims Lead Plaintiffs or members of the Putative Class have or could have asserted against the Debtors through the following distributions: (i) $7 million in cash, payable by the Debtors on the initial distribution date for the Amended Equity Plan; (ii) 15% of the Net Proceeds of the Debtors' professional liability action against Proskauer Rose LLP and certain individual defendants; (iii) $5 million in cash, payable by Reorganized OSG upon resolution of the Professional Liability Action; (iv) $3 million in cash, payable by Reorganized OSG on the first anniversary of the effective date of the Amended Equity Plan; (envy) proceeds of any of the Debtors' residual interests in certain director and officer insurance policies; and (vi) any remaining cash in a $2 million reserve, after accounting for satisfaction or resolution of other subordinated claims. OSG revised the Plan to provide that a single Class (New Class E1) will comprise all Subordinated Debt and Equity Claims, including but not limited to Claim 1547 filed by the Lead Plaintiffs. The New Class E1 will be impaired. OSG's original plan filed in March 2014, provided that all claims of the Putative Class would be treated as Subordinated Claims and classified together with Old OSG Equity Interests in Class E1, regardless of whether the Putative Class claims were based on purchase or sale of Debt Securities or Equity Securities. The Original Plan also provided that holders of Allowed Class E1 Claims would receive a pro rata share of Reorganized OSG Equity equal to $61.4 million, subject to dilution on account of certain events. The First Amended Plan filed on May 2 provided that the Debt Securities Claims would be classified in new Class E1 and Equity Securities Claims would be in new Class E2. The Holders of Allowed Claim in E1 or E2 would receive its pro rata share of the proceeds of any residual director and officer insurance, and to the extent its Claim exceed that Pro Rata share, Cash equal to the amount of the Allowed Claim form and subject to a reserve capped at $2 million. The Lead Plaintiffs objected to the treatment of their Claim provided in both Plan versions. The Debtors and the Lead Plaintiffs engaged in negotiations to avoid costs and risks inherent in litigating the Objection. The Securities Class Stipulation resolves only the Lead Plaintiffs' and Putative Class members' claims against the Debtors. The Lead Plaintiffs' claims pending in the District Court against certain of the Debtors' current and former officers, auditors and underwriters are unaffected. The Securities Class Stipulation provides for Lead Plaintiffs' agreement to support and vote in favor of the Amended Equity Plan. Allocation and distribution to members of the Putative Class, as well as approval of legal fees and reimbursement of expenses to counsel for Lead Plaintiffs, will be resolved by the District Court, subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. A hearing will be held July 18 to consider confirmation of the Plan. At the hearing the Court will also consider whether the Class Action Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and should be approved on a final basis. Objections to the Settlement are due July 11. The Class is represented by Lead Counsel: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Alan I. Ellman, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 28 South Service Road Melville, NY 11747 More information about the Class Action Settlement may be obtained from the Lead Counsel or Kurtzman Carson Consultants, the claims agent. About Overseas Shipholding Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (OTC: OSGIQ), headquartered in New York, is one of the largest publicly traded tanker companies in the world, engaged primarily in the ocean transportation of crude oil and petroleum products. OSG owns or operates 111 vessels that transport oil and petroleum products throughout the world. PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Defendant in Securities Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A putative class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, violations of state securities laws was filed against Pacific Continental Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, both currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state securities laws and aiding breach of fiduciary duty, names Pacific Continental Bank, along with Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Trust, Jones & Roth, P.C. and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. Claimants seek the return of the money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus interest, and costs and attorneys' fees, which are claimed to be in excess of $10 million. Pacific Continental Corporation is a bank holding company. The Company's principal business activities are conducted through Pacific Continental Bank (the Bank), an Oregon state-chartered bank with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The Bank has two subsidiaries, PCB Service Corporation (presently inactive), which formerly held and managed Bank property, and PCB Loan Services (presently inactive), which formerly managed certain other real estate owned. The Bank operates in three primary markets: Portland, Oregon / Southwest Washington; Seattle, Washington; and Eugene, Oregon. At December 31, 2011, the Bank operated 14 full-service offices and one loan production office in six Oregon and four Washington cities. In February 2013, it acquired Eugene-based Century Bank. PALMETTO PERSONAL: Suit Seeks Wage at FLSA-Required Overtime Rate ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lorita Lynn Enagudia, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons v. Palmetto Personal Care Services, Inc. and Shannon Cribb, Case No. 7:14-cv-00123-D (E.D.N.C., June 6, 2014), is a collective action brought by a former employee seeking wages at the overtime rate required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Palmetto Personal Care Services, Inc. is a South Carolina corporation with its principal place of business located in Tabor City, North Carolina. Shannon Cribb is the President and owner/operator of Palmetto. The Plaintiff and the proposed class members were employed by the Defendants to provide supervised companion care to various aged or infirm persons in or around Tabor City, North Carolina, Ms. Enagudia says. She notes that more than 20% of the total weekly hours of that work consisted of general household work or general household services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Willis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A. P.O. Box 1269 5. W. Hargett Street, Suite 404 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 821-9031 Facsimile: (919) 821-1763 E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com PEEKSKILL, NY: Faces Class Action Over "Unauthorized Transport" --------------------------------------------------------------- Marlene Kennedy, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that officials in an upstate New York school district stood by as students were whisked off campus to receive physical exams and birth control prescriptions without parental consent, parents of one student claim in a class action. Anthony and Eva Jackson allege that a school counselor and his wife, who worked at a local health clinic, "agreed, conspired and/or arranged" the trips, which occurred during school hours beginning in June 2011 in the Peekskill City School District. At the clinic, "plaintiffs' minor daughter was examined and prescribed birth control pills before being transported back to school . . . all without plaintiffs' knowledge, consent or opportunity to opt out," the parents say in the lawsuit in Westchester County Supreme Court. The Jacksons say they alerted then-Superintendant James Willis to the trips, and that Willis "did nothing, thereby implicitly but affirmatively condoning" them. Willis, the district and its school board are named as defendants. Also named are James Tosto, who worked for the district as a school counselor, and his wife, Dawn Tosto. She is identified in the complaint as an employee of the Hudson River Community Health Clinic, who had access to school premises and students. James Tosto will retire from the district this month, according to minutes of a January school board meeting at which the June retirements of several district employees were approved. The minutes are posted online. Peekskill, pop. 25,000, about 53 miles north of New York City, had one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Westchester County two decades ago, at 122 births per 1,000 females age 15-19, according to The New York Times. More recently, that rate is 47 per 1,000, state health statistics from 2009-11 show. The Jacksons claim other students also were taken for exams and given access to birth control. They claim that James Tosto arranged the "unauthorized transport," which Dawn Tosto provided, from campus to the clinic. The Jacksons say they learned of the trips after their daughter began taking the birth control pills. They claim the trips violated their due process rights under the U.S. and New York constitutions. They also contend the trips violated provisions of state public health law that require parental consent for health services provided to unemancipated minors. Because the defendants acted "willfully, maliciously, intentionally, oppressively, and in reckless disregard of plaintiffs' constitutional rights and the possible consequences of their conduct," the Jacksons say punitive damages should be awarded jointly and severally. They also seek compensatory damages, costs and fees. They are represented by Mary Marzolla with Feerick Lynch MacCartney in South Nyack. Lorenzo Licopoli, who replaced Willis as interim district superintendent in 2013, did not respond to an email Monday afternoon seeking comment. Willis, hired as superintendent in July 2011, retired last summer in the middle of a four-year contract. At the time, he said he wanted to spend more time with his family, which lived out of state. The school board subsequently issued a statement that cited "irreconcilable differences" with Willis, but said the parting was amicable. The board statement said Willis was paid six months' severance and given health insurance benefits so long as he stayed "retired and unemployed." PELLA CORPORATION: 7th Cir. Reverses Judgment in "Eubank" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the the judgment entered in the case captioned KENT EUBANK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and LEONARD E. SALTZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PELLA CORPORATION and PELLA WINDOWS AND DOORS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, NOS. 13-2091, 13-2133, 13- 2136, 13-2162, 13-2202. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings in conformity with its opinion. "After eight largely wasted years, much remains to be done in this case. For starters, Saltzman, Paul Weiss, and Weiss's firm, Complex Litigation Group, must be replaced as class representative (Saltzman), and as class counsel (Weiss and his firm), respectively. And since we are rejecting the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs named in the third amended complaint, whom that agreement caused to be substituted for the original named plaintiffs (other than Saltzman), must be discharged and the four original named plaintiffs (whom we've called the "defrocked" plaintiffs) reinstated, wrote Circuit Judge Posner in the June 2, 2014 ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/F4b2mh from Leagle.com. PETROLOGISTICS: Being Sold to Koch for Too Little, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling PetroLogistics too cheaply through an unfair process to Koch Industries, for $14 a share or $2.1 billion, shareholders claim in a federal class action in Wilmington, Del. PGG/HSC FEED: Recalls Champion Lamb Texturized Feed --------------------------------------------------- PGG/HSC Feed Company, LLC, has implemented a voluntary recall of 50-pound packages of its Champion Lamb Texturized B30 product due to higher than allowable copper levels. The product was manufactured in February 2014 and carries the UPC code UPC- 748252483805 located in the bottom left corner of a white label attached to a Payback bag with a photo of a lamb. Consumption of the affected product, Champion Lamb Texturized feed B30, Lot-88022114M908840, may cause potential health risks, including death, in sheep. Symptoms of copper toxicity in lambs include lethargy, anemic appearance, excessive teeth grinding, extreme thirst, pale membranes (jaundice) and bloody urine. One sheep fatality has been reported potentially in connection with this product. The recalled product was distributed to six retail feed dealers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. The potential presence of high copper levels was detected by company sample tests of the product which was manufactured on Feb. 21, 2014, at its Hermiston, Ore., feed mill. The company said it has determined the source of the high copper levels and is revising its testing protocol. The company has contacted affected dealers and conducted a voluntary recall of unconsumed product which was packaged in 50- pound bags under the Payback(R) and bore the lot label 88022114M908840. Consumers who purchased this product and have remaining quantities are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (605) 373-2563 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CDT. Information also is available at disclaimer iconhttp://www.paybacknutrition.com. PGG/HSC Feed is a joint venture of Pendleton Grain Growers, Pendleton, Ore., and CHS Inc., of St. Paul, Minn. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Defends Against 8 PNG Merger Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Eight purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of PNG unitholders challenging the merger with Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., according to Plains All American's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. Two lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2013 and were consolidated under the caption In re PAA Natural Gas Storage, Limited Partnership Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8908-VCL (the Consolidated Delaware Action). Two lawsuits were filed in Texas state court in September 2013 and were consolidated under the caption Vicars v. PNGS GP, LLC, et al., Cause No. 2013-52687 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Harris County) (the Consolidated Texas Action). Four lawsuits were filed in Texas federal court in October 2013 and were consolidated under the caption The DuckPond Trust, et al., v. PAA Natural Gas Storage, LP., et al., 4:13-cv-03170 (S.D. Tex.) (the Consolidated Federal Action). Plaintiffs in these Actions generally alleged that (i) the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to PNG unitholders; (ii) the PNG Merger unfairly benefitted certain members of PNG's board of directors; and (iii) PNG's general partner, PNG and other of our affiliates aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the individual defendants. In addition, the Consolidated Texas Action included purported derivative claims on behalf of PNG based on the alleged breaches of duties by the individual defendants. All of the PNG unitholder suits were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs with no settlement payments or concessions by PNG. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. is engaged in the transportation, storage, terminalling and marketing of crude oil and refined products, as well as in the processing, transportation, fractionation, storage and marketing of natural gas liquids (NGL). The term NGL includes ethane and natural gasoline products, as well as propane and butane, products, which are also commonly referred to as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The Company's operations are conducted directly and indirectly through its primary operating subsidiaries. Through its general partner interest in PAA Natural Gas Storage, L.P., it also owns and operates natural gas storage facilities. The Company operates in three segments: Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. In December 31, 2013, it completed the merger of PAA Natural Gas Storage, L.P with a wholly owned subsidiary of Plains, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of PAA. PRINCESS HOUSE: Recalls Plates Due to Cadmium and Lead Levels ------------------------------------------------------------- Princess House, Inc., Taunton, MA, a nationwide direct sales distributor of tableware and house goods, said that as a result of internal compliance and independent product testing, it has very recently become aware that a small quantity of its Marissa Tangerine Appetizer Plates, when put into certain food service use, may allow cadmium and lead in the decorative plate decal to escape at levels exceeding U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and/or California Proposition 65 guidance levels. While not all Plates distributed by the Company have this condition, Princess House is voluntarily recalling all these Plates distributed through its consultant and hostess network. No illness or injury related to this situation has been reported to date. Only the Tangerine Appetizer Plates are affected by this voluntary recall and all other Marissa collection tableware are not involved. Product featured below depicts the Marissa Tangerine Appetizer Plate that is the subject of this voluntary recall: If you are a consumer with one or more of these Plates, you can obtain information about product return and exchange for product of equal or greater value by contacting your sales consultant or hostess or by contacting Princess House directly at (877) 233- 1647. You can also review the voluntary recall page on the Princess House website at www.princesshouse.com. If you are a Princess House consultant or hostess, refer to the mailing provided by the Company or contact the Company directly as outlined. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the US Food and Drug Administration. PROGRESS ENERGY: Trial in Antitrust Lawsuit to Begin July 2015 -------------------------------------------------------------- A certified class action complaint filed against Progress Energy, Inc., alleging unfair price advantages, is set to begin trial on July 27, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by entering into non-public option agreements in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP) implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class action. Trial has been set to begin on July 27, 2015. It is not possible to predict whether Duke Energy Ohio will incur any liability or to estimate the damages which may be incurred in connection with this lawsuit. Progress Energy, Inc. is a utility holding company engaged in the regulated electric utility business. It owns, directly or indirectly, its utility subsidiaries, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) and Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). The Company's segments are PEC and PEF, which are engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina and in portions of Florida, respectively. The Corporate and Other segment includes amounts applicable to the activities of the Parent and Progress Energy Service Company, LLC (PESC) and other miscellaneous non-regulated businesses (Corporate and Other). Effective July 2, 2012, Duke Energy Corporation merged with the Company. PROGRESS ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Progress Energy, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that a decision is pending on the motion to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the Company made materially false and misleading representations in its Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011. Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Duke Energy Board of Directors who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy Board of Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and Exchange Act claims based on allegations of materially false and misleading representations and omissions in the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in CEO. The claims are purportedly brought on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Duke Energy securities between June 11, 2012 and July 9, 2012. On July 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended the District Court Judge deny the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 2, 2013, the District Judge heard defendants' objections to this recommendation. A decision is pending on the motion to dismiss. Mediation of the claims was scheduled for May 14, 2014. Progress Energy, Inc. is a utility holding company engaged in the regulated electric utility business. It owns, directly or indirectly, its utility subsidiaries, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) and Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). The Company's segments are PEC and PEF, which are engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina and in portions of Florida, respectively. The Corporate and Other segment includes amounts applicable to the activities of the Parent and Progress Energy Service Company, LLC (PESC) and other miscellaneous non-regulated businesses (Corporate and Other). Effective July 2, 2012, Duke Energy Corporation merged with the Company. PROTECTIVE SERVICE: Removed "Estupinan" Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The Defendants removed the purported class action lawsuit titled Estupinan v. Protective Service Victory Corp., et al., Case No. 14-10454 CA 01, from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv- 22102-JLK to the proceeding. In his complaint, Plaintiff Fernando Toro Estupinan seeks to recover backpay he alleges he is owed for alleged violations by the Defendants of the Fair Labor Standards Act. He seeks recovery for alleged underpayment of the minimum wage, overtime, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edilberto O. Marban, Esq. 1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-9292 Facsimile: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Stanley Kiszkiel, Esq. 9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 94 Pembroke Pines, FL 33024 Telephone: (954) 862-2288 Facsimile: (954) 862-2287 E-mail: sklaw@kiszkiellaw.com REACHLOCAL INC: Defendant in Unfair Competition Law Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- ReachLocal, Inc., is a defendant in a purported class action alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On May 2, 2014, a lawsuit, purporting to be a class action, was filed by one of the Company's former clients in the United States District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law. While the case is at an early stage, the Company believes that the case is substantively and procedurally without merit. The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, management believes that the final disposition of existing matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. ReachLocal, Inc. offers online marketing and reporting solutions, including search engine marketing, display advertising, remarketing and online marketing analytics, each targeted to the small and medium-sized businesses (SMB) market. RED ONION STATE: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Officials Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Abdul Hamza Wali Muhammad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action captioned ABDUL HAMZA WALI MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, ET AL;, Defendant(s), CASE NO. 7:14CV00272, (W.D. Va.) alleging that prison officials at Red Onion State Prison are failing to accommodate his religious dietary beliefs properly. The court has conditionally filed the action, pending plaintiff's consent to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Upon review of the record, however, Chief District Judge Glen E. Conrad finds that the plaintiff's motion for interlocutory injunctive relief and his request for certification of the case as a class action must be denied. In a memorandum opinion May 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NvzVVGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Conrad held that Mr. Muhammad offers no indication whatsoever that he is entitled to receive a religious diet defined by a 1991 court order to officials at another [Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC")] prison . . . As such, he cannot satisfy the four requirements for the extraordinary relief he seeks, and the court must deny his motion for preliminary injunction. Abdul Hamza Wali Muhammad, Plaintiff, Pro Se. REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in NY ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 30 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Regional Management Corp. pursuant to the Company's public stock offerings on September 20, 2013 at $27.50 per share and on December 5, 2013 at $31 per share (collectively, the "Offerings"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 30, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/regionalmanagement/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Regional Management, certain of its officers and directors and the investment banks that underwrote the Offerings with violations of the Securities Act in connection with preparing and utilizing a materially false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectuses to conduct the Offerings. Regional Management is a subprime consumer finance company, providing various loan products primarily to subprime borrowers with limited access to consumer credit from banks, thrifts, credit card companies, and other traditional lenders. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectuses used to effectuate the Offerings failed to adequately disclose the Company's (a) increasing deterioration of underwriting standards, leading to higher percentages of delinquencies and loan charge-offs; (b) failure to adequately reserve for loan losses; and (c) repeated debt refinancing tactics used to increase loan amounts and interest rates, a practice the U.S. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau was then actively investigating and clamping down on. In addition, defendants misstated the Company's fourth quarter and fiscal 2012 financial reports and failed to report defects in its internal controls. As these unscrupulous tactics and false financial statements came to light, the stock price declined approximately 50% from what the Offerings were priced at just months earlier. With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. RITE AID: Recalls 16 oz. Pints of Mint 'N Chip Thrifty Ice Cream ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid has initiated a voluntary recall of approximately 560 16 oz. pints of Mint 'n Chip ice cream distributed under the Thrifty brand name. These pints contain pistachio ice cream with pistachios; however, the ice cream was inadvertently placed in containers labeled as being Mint 'n Chip. People who are allergic to nuts, including pistachios, may run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume the product. Rite Aid notified the United States Food and Drug Administration of this issue on June 3, 2014 and will work in consultation with it regarding this recall. This recall affects only 16 oz. Mint 'n Chip ice cream pints sold exclusively in Rite Aid stores in California. Affected products can be identified by the UPC code 1182264327 located on the back of each pint. The affected products also contain the lot number 24273 and an expiration date of Oct. 28, 2015 located on the bottom of the pints. No other Thrifty or Rite Aid brand products are affected by this voluntary recall. Customers who are allergic to nuts, including pistachios, should not consume these pints and can return them to any Rite Aid store for a full refund. Information regarding the recall is available online at www.riteaid.com or by calling 1-800-RITE-AID Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. EST and Saturday from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. EST. Rite Aid Corporation is one of the nation's leading drugstore chains with nearly 4,600 stores in 31 states and the District of Columbia and fiscal 2014 annual revenues of $25.5 billion. Information about Rite Aid, including corporate background and press releases, is available through the company's website at www.riteaid.com SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued Over Delay in Generic Version of Zymar ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hartig Drug Company Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Allergan, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 00719-UNA (D. Del., June 6, 2014), is an antitrust class action lawsuit relating to Zymar or Zymaxid products. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in a scheme to unlawfully exclude or delay generic competition in the market for gatifloxacin opthalmic formulations (generic versions of Zymar or Zymaxid). The Defendants manufacture, market and sell brand name pharmaceuticals Zymar and Zymaxid, which are used to treat bacterial infections, particularly bacterial conjunctivitis or pinkeye. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Clayton Athey, Esq. Eric Joseph Juray, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 King Street P.O. Box 1328 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 888-6500 Facsimile: (302) 658-8111 E-mail: jcathey@prickett.com ejjuray@prickett.com - and - Brent W. Landau, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1604 Locust St., 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 Facsimile: (215) 985-3271 E-mail: blandau@hausfeldllp.com - and - Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K St. NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mcoolidge@hausfeldllp.com - and - Gregory A. Frank, Esq. FRANK & BIANCO LLP 275 Madison Ave. #705 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 682-1853 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 E-mail: gfrank@frankandbianco.com SILVERLEAF RESORTS: "Parker" Suit Moved From Houston to Dallas -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Parker, et al. v. Silverleaf Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00085, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02075-P to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq. Genevieve B. Estrada, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528-4455 Facsimile: (713) 528-2047 E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark A. Shoffner, Esq. Cristina Iliana Torres, Esq. Marc D. Katz, Esq. ANDREWS KURTH LLP 1717 Main St., Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 659-4400 Facsimile: (214) 659-4401 E-mail: mshoffner@andrewskurth.com cristinatorres@andrewskurth.com marckatz@andrewskurth.com SMITH'S COUNTRY: Recalls Waxed Gouda Wheels Due to Health Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Smith's Country Cheese of Winchendon, MA is recalling 21 wheels of Waxed Gouda, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Waxed Gouda wheels were distributed in Massachusetts by wholesale distributors and further sold to retail stores. The wheels are coated in red wax and wrapped in saran wrap with various weights of whole wheels at 10 lbs and half wheels at 5 lbs. May have been cut and packaged at retail level for consumer size units. There are labels on the front that read Smith's Farmstead Gouda for whole wheels and Mountain Gouda for half wheels. On the back of the wheel there is a weight label with a julian date in the lower right hand corner that reads 4037. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was the result of a routine sampling by the FDA which revealed that the finished products contained the bacteria. Consumers who have purchased Smith's Farmstead Gouda waxed wheels are urged not to consume and to return them to Smith's Country Cheese, Inc. at 20 Otter River Road, Winchendon, MA 01475 for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Smith's Country Cheese, Inc. at 1-800-700-9974 Monday through Friday between 9:00 am to 5:00 pm EST. SPIRIT REALTY: Signed MOU to Settle Cole II Merger Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., signed a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement of all claims in the putative class action in connection with the Cole Credit Property Trust II, Inc., merger, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. In connection with the Merger, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland against and purportedly on behalf of the Company captioned Kendrick, et al. v. Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al. The complaint names as defendants Spirit, the members of the board of directors of Spirit, the Operating Partnership, Cole II and the Cole Operating Partnership, and alleges that the directors of Spirit breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair process leading to the Merger Agreement, failing to disclose sufficient material information for pre-merger Spirit stockholders to make an informed decision regarding whether or not to approve the Merger, agreeing to a Merger Agreement at an opportunistic and unfair price, allowing draconian and preclusive deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement, and engaging in self-interested and otherwise conflicted actions. The complaint alleges that the Operating Partnership, Cole II and the Cole Operating Partnership aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks a declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted such breaches and that the Merger Agreement is unenforceable, an order enjoining a vote on the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescission of the transactions in the event they are consummated, imposition of a constructive trust, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and other relief. On June 4, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, the named defendants in the merger litigation signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein. The MOU provides, among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the release and dismissal of all asserted claims (the "Stipulation of Settlement"). The Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the court on January 22, 2014 for approval, however, the asserted claims will not be released and dismissed until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the court. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the Stipulation of Settlement. The Company does not expect that the terms of the settlement, if approved by the court, would have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations. Spirit Realty Capital, Inc. is a Maryland corporation and operates as a self-administered and self-managed REIT that seeks to generate and deliver sustainable and attractive returns for stockholders by investing primarily in and managing a portfolio of single-tenant, operationally essential real estate throughout the United States that is generally leased on a long-term, triple-net basis primarily to tenants engaged in retail, service and distribution industries. STATE FARM: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Pellegrino" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In LOUIS PELLEGRINO; CHRISTINE PELLEGRINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER AFFILIATED INSURANCE COMPANIES, NO. 13-3571, Louis and Christine Pellegrino appealed a District Court order granting State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's motion to dismiss the Pellegrinos' First Amended Class Action Complaint. In an opinion dated June 2, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/UX82YWfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that the District Court properly dismissed the Pellegrinos' breach of contract claim. Because the Pellegrinos' bad faith and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claims require proof that State Farm breached its contract, the Third Circuit concluded that the District Court properly dismissed these claims as well. STEREOTAXIS INC: Missouri Court Dismisses Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court granted Stereotaxis, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported securities class action alleging Securities Act violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. According to the Company, "on October 7, 2011, a purported securities class action was filed against the Company and two of the Company's past executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by Kevin Pound, a purported shareholder of the Company. On December 29, 2011, the court granted an unopposed motion appointing Local 522 Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff in the action and granting Lead Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint, which Lead Plaintiff filed on March 19, 2012. The Amended Complaint alleged that, during the period from February 28, 2011 through August 9, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and future business prospects, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Amended Complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. On May 18, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On July 24, 2012, Lead Plaintiff filed its response to the motion to dismiss, and on August 30, 2012, the Company filed its reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. On March 18, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal prior to the deadline of April 17, 2014." Stereotaxis, Inc. is a United States-based company that develops probes, devices, therapeutic and magnetic surgery delivery systems. TD AMERITRADE : Motion to Dismiss "Ross" Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- According to TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, in its Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, its motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit is pending. In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve Yield Plus Fund. On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor, certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons. The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the fund. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary damages and equitable relief. On January 19, 2010, the defendants submitted motions to dismiss the complaint. The motions are pending. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a provider of securities brokerage services and technology-based financial services to retail investors, traders and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs). TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: "Dartell" Suit Transferred to New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Dartell v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00089, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Virgin Islands to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03620 to the proceeding. The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class of those who purchased the common stock of Tibet in its Initial Public Offering on January 24, 2011, or thereafter. The Complaint seeks to recover damages to the Class members caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a British Virgin Islands corporation that purportedly engages in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and selling of modernized traditional Tibetan medicine in the People's Republic of China. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel H. Holt, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOEL HOLT 2132 Company Street, Suite 2 St. Croix, VI 00820 Telephone: (340) 773-8709 Facsimile: (340) 773-8677 E-mail: holtvi@aol.com - and - Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com UNIFUND CCR: 9th Cir. Remands Claims to Calif. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------- In 2008, Unifund CCR Partners, a debt collection agency, sued Kimberly Grant in Los Angeles County Superior Court for collection of unpaid credit card debt. Ms. Grant did not respond to the complaint. After the motion, the Superior Court entered default judgment in favor of Unifund. Ms. Grant filed a putative class action lawsuit in the District Court for the Central District of California on September 30, 2011, against Unifund CCR Partners and Unifund Corporation ("Grant I"). This action asserted claims for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and state-law claims for abuse of process and conversion. On October 5, 2011, Ms. Grant filed a motion in California state court to vacate the prior state court judgment, claiming that she had never been served with the complaint. The superior court denied the motion, and Ms. Grant did not appeal. The district court in Grant I granted Unifund's motion for summary judgment on February 6, 2012. The court divided Grant's claims into two classes. The first class was made up of those claims that were premised on the allegation that Unifund "did not give plaintiff proper written notice in order to alidate the alleged debt before suing her, in violation of section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA." The Grant I court granted Unifund summary judgment on the merits with regard to this first class of claims because Ninth Circuit law requires only that a debt collector provide undisputed evidence that a letter informing the debtor of the debt was mailed to the debtor and not returned as undeliverable. Unifund provided such evidence. The second class of Grant's claims were those premised on Ms. Grant's remaining four allegations: "(1) that plaintiff was never served with the summons and complaint in the state court action; (2) that plaintiff does not owe the debt at issue in the state court action; (3) that Unifund [] improperly garnished her money; and (4) that the . . . Affidavit[s] submitted in support of the request for default judgment w[ere] `false and fraudulent.'" The court held that these allegations constituted a de facto appeal from Ms. Grant's state judgment. Accordingly, the Grant I court decided that "pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court cannot entertain any claims premised on those alleged wrongs," and therefore granted Unifund's summary judgment with regard to them. Mr. Grant did not appeal that judgment. On March 15, 2012, Grant filed a putative class action (Grant II) in Los Angeles County Superior Court, naming Unifund CCR LLC and Unifund Corp. as defendants. Ms. Grant's allegations are substantially identical to those in Grant I. Defendants removed Grant II under claim of federal question jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that it was barred by res judicata. Grant moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court should have remanded the action to state court rather than dismiss with prejudice because the Rooker- Feldman doctrine had deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied Grant's motion for reconsideration. Ms. Grant appealed both rulings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of the first class of claims, but reverses and remands the second class of claims to the district court with instructions to remand them to California state court. Each party shall bear their own costs. The Ninth Circuit finds that the district court was correct to dismiss with prejudice Grant's first class of claims, however, it found that the district court erred in dismissing with prejudice the second class of claims. The case is KIMBERLY GRANT, individually and on behalf of the members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. UNIFUND CCR, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Defendant, And UNIFUND CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation and UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, a New York partnership, Defendants- Appellees, NO. 12-56641. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 2, 2014 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/VOmi8dfrom Leagle.com. US SECURITY: Removed "Allan" Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Shmenia Allan v. US Security Associates Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS1406319, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01150-VAP-SP to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Zareh Kokozian, Esq. KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1018 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 857-5900 Facsimile: (323) 935-4919 E-mail: bkokozian@kokozianlawfirm.com - and - Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com lander@kbarnes.com The Defendants are represented by: Julie Westcott O'Dell, Esq. Julie E. Patterson, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 E-mail: julie.odell@bryancave.com jepatterson@bryancave.com VANEE FOODS: Recalls Turkey Base Product Due To Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------- Vanee Foods, a Broadview, Ill. establishment is recalling approximately 3,156 pounds of turkey base because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The turkey base which contains milk was misbranded as chicken base that does not include milk. As the product contains milk, a known allergen which was not declared on the label, the product is being recalled. The product subject to recall is: Imperial Sysco Turkey Base in 1-lb. tubs labeled as Chicken Base with SUPC # 4944450, 6 per case with case codes 01734-6700 ending in 0784-5; the outer cases are labeled as Turkey Base The product, produced on March 19, 2014, bears the establishment number "P-19339" inside the USDA mark of inspection both on the product and on the cases containing the product. After production, the products were shipped to food service distribution centers in Pennsylvania, Florida, Oregon, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Virginia. The problem was discovered after one of the company's customers found tubs labeled as chicken base in cases labeled as containing turkey base. Following a quality check by the company, the company found that turkey base had mistakenly been packaged into tubs labeled for chicken base. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact Alex Vanee, Vice President of Operations at (708) 236-7021. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888- 674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. VIZIO INC: Moved "Hinshaw" Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit styled Kirk Hinshaw v. Vizio Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2014-00719115, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv- 00876-DOC-AN to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. SPENCER LAW FIRM 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (949) 240-8595 Facsimile: (949) 240-8515 E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net - and - Jeffrey N. Wilens, Esq. LAKESHORE LAW CENTER 18340 Yorba Linda Boulevard, Suite 107-610 Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Telephone: (714) 854-7205 Facsimile: (714) 854-7206 E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org The Defendants are represented by: David I. Hurwitz, Esq. Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG & RHOW 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 E-mail: dih@birdmarella.com eer@birdmarella.com VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Class Actions Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ A U.S. court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate two purported securities class action alleging securities violations against Vocera Communications, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On August 1, 2013, a purported securities class action entitled Michael Brado v. Vocera Communications Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of its officers, its board of directors, a former director and the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering. A second purported securities class action, entitled Duncan v. Vocera Communications Inc., et al., was filed on August 21, 2013, also in the Northern District of California, against the same parties. On September 27, 2013, the Court ordered the matters related. The suits purport to allege claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly misleading statements in the registration statement for the Company's initial public offering and in subsequent communications regarding its business and financial results. The suits are purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 28, 2012 and May 3, 2013, and seek compensatory damages, rescission, fees and costs, as well as equitable and injunctive or other relief. The plaintiffs' motion for consolidation of the actions and for appointment of lead plaintiff has been granted, and the Company anticipates that the plaintiffs will file an amended consolidated complaint. No responses to the current complaints are due at this time. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company said it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flow. The Company has not established any reserve for any potential liability relating to this lawsuit, because this contingency is not considered probable and reasonably estimable. Vocera Communications, Inc. provides Voice Communication, Messaging and Care Transition solutions. WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Bagged Ice Due to Possible Metal Bits ----------------------------------------------------------- Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is voluntarily recalling Wegmans Ice in 18 lb. (UPC 77890 29200) and 7 lb. (UPC 77890 29197) bags sold between January 1 and June 10, 2014. This recall has been initiated because the ice may contain metal pieces from a broken part in the machine that produces the ice, posing a possible choking hazard. The affected bags of Wegmans Ice were sold in Wegmans' stores located in Pennsylvania (excluding Erie), New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland. (Note: This recall does not affect Wegmans Ice sold in the company's New York State, Massachusetts or Erie, PA stores.) Wegmans estimates that approximately 6,000 bags of potentially affected ice were sold. The company also confirmed that automated phone calls will be placed to customers who purchased Wegmans ice, using their Shoppers Club card. There have been no reported injuries associated with this recall, nor have there been any reports from consumers that metal pieces were present in bags already purchased. The problem was discovered by Wegmans during a routine maintenance check of the equipment. Customers may return the product to Wegmans for a full refund. Consumers who have questions or concerns about this recall should contact Wegmans Consumer Affairs Department toll free at 1 (855) 934-3663 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Visit www.wegmans.comdisclaimer icon for a list of all product recalls. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is an 84-store supermarket chain with stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The family-owned company, founded in 1916, is recognized as an industry leader and innovator. Wegmans has been named one of the '100 Best Companies to Work For' by FORTUNE magazine for 17 consecutive years. In 2014, Wegmans ranked #12 on the list. WOODRIDGE VILLAGE: Faces Class Action Over $30 Arrestees' Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that during oral arguments over the constitutionality of a Chicago suburb's $30 fee on all arrestees, the 7th Circuit's Judge Richard Posner called it "ridiculous" to charge a person simply for being arrested. Jerry Markadonatos filed a class action against the village of Woodridge, a wealthy and predominantly white Chicago suburb, claiming that the fee violates arrestees' due process rights because it may be imposed whether there is probable cause or not. A divided panel upheld the fee earlier this year, but the circuit voted to rehear the case en banc today in front of a packed courtroom. "Would people be entitled to a hearing at $300?" Judge Ann Williams asked. "Thirty dollars could be a lot of money to someone out of work." "That might be a little different," defense attorney Paul Rettberg said. "In terms of society today, $30 is a very small amount." Rettberg repeatedly faltered in response to the court's questions. More than once, a judge asked "why we're here," provoking laughter in the courtroom. He stood in silence when Judge Diane Wood pointed out that an innocent person could be charged. Plaintiff's attorney James Burnham also seemed unprepared to argue whether or not $30 was a fundamental right. When pointedly asked by Judge Frank Easterbrook, he began to say "no" before backtracking to state that "there's a fundamental right to be free from arbitrary governmental action as it relates to property." Nonetheless, Easterbrook accused Burnham of "making a mockery" of Supreme Court precedent that states that there is only a substantive due process violation when a fundamental right is violated. Judge Posner stated point blank that "there's no basis for charging a person to be arrested." He bristled at Rettberg's analogy to filing fees: "Arrest is not a privilege. Paying for being arrested is ridiculous." Posner also offered a more sympathetic reading of the ordinance, stating that it was not unconstitutional so long as the fee applied to bail or bond. "What's frustrating to me is that neither side is discussing the bond aspect," Posner said. "If it applies only to bond, what's the big deal? Can't a fee be charged for bail or bond? It's a service." Burnham rebuffed this suggestion, which Posner raised multiple times throughout the hearing. Many audience members were chuckling by the third or fourth time that Posner brought up the bail issue, which neither side argued in its brief or considered dispositive. Only in the final seconds of his rebuttal did Burnham effectively respond: "The village wrote the ordinance broadly. The court shouldn't impose a savings reading to help the village with an argument that it never raised itself." Judge Diane Sykes, who concurred with the judgment for Woodridge before, asked Burnham why a town could "impose a fee for impounding a dog or cat" given that "lots of fees are imposed without hearings." "You choose to have a dog," Burnham said. "Arrest is unique in that the government can arrest you at any time. A fee cannot be imposed for the naked fact of arrest." Sykes found the question of standing decisive in the first panel hearing and raised the issue again since the ordinance has now been repealed. However, Burnham insisted that the class still has standing to seek reimbursement for the fees they already paid. ZALICUS INC: Defendant in 3 Merger-Related Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------- Three putative class action lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with a proposed merger, were filed against Zalicus Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On April 15, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization with Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a privately held biopharmaceutical company ("Epirus") and BRunning, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Zalicus ("Merger Subsidiary"), pursuant to which the Merger Subsidiary will be merged with and into Epirus (the "Merger") at the effective time of the Merger, with Epirus continuing after the Merger as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zalicus. On May 7, 2014, the Company and Epirus entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger Agreement. The percentage of the combined company that Zalicus stockholders will own following the closing of the Merger is subject to adjustment based on the level of Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger. On a pro forma basis, based upon the number of shares of Zalicus common stock to be issued in the Merger, following the closing of the Merger (i) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 19% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own approximately 81% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger is equal to or in excess of $12,000, (ii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 17% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own approximately 83% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger is in excess of $9,000 but less than $12,000, and (iii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 14% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own approximately 86% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger is equal to or less than $9,000. Zalicus is exploring different alternatives to increase its level of net cash. Between April 28, 2014 and May 2, 2014, three putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, against Zalicus, BRunning, Inc., the members of Zalicus' board of directors and Epirus. These actions are: Paul Patrick Laky v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14- 1380; Michael Ma v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1381; Harrypersaud v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1455. The Massachusetts Actions allege that the Zalicus board breached its fiduciary duties, and that Epirus, Zalicus and BRunning aided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection with the proposed merger. The Massachusetts Actions seek relief including, among other things, to enjoin defendants from proceeding with the merger, to enjoin defendants from consummating the merger unless additional procedures are implemented, and an award of all costs of the Massachusetts Actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. Zalicus Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops treatments for patients suffering from pain and immuno- inflammatory diseases. ZALICUS INC: Defendant in "Harvey Stein" Lawsuit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ Zalicus Inc., is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the Company's board breached their fiduciary duties, in connection with a proposed merger transaction, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. On April 15, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization with Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a privately held biopharmaceutical company ("Epirus") and BRunning, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Zalicus ("Merger Subsidiary"), pursuant to which the Merger Subsidiary will be merged with and into Epirus (the "Merger") at the effective time of the Merger, with Epirus continuing after the Merger as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zalicus. On May 7, 2014, the Company and Epirus entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger Agreement. The percentage of the combined company that Zalicus stockholders will own following the closing of the Merger is subject to adjustment based on the level of Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger. On a pro forma basis, based upon the number of shares of Zalicus common stock to be issued in the Merger, following the closing of the Merger (i) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 19% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own approximately 81% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger is equal to or in excess of $12,000, (ii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 17% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own approximately 83% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger is in excess of $9,000 but less than $12,000, and (iii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 14% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own approximately 86% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger is equal to or less than $9,000. Zalicus is exploring different alternatives to increase its level of net cash. On May 1, 2014, Harvey Stein v. Zalicus, Inc. et al., Case No. 9602, was filed by a purported stockholder of Zalicus in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Zalicus, Zalicus' directors and Epirus. The Delaware Action alleges that the Zalicus board breached their fiduciary duties, and Epirus and BRunning aided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection with the proposed merger. The Delaware Action seeks relief including, among other things, to preliminary and permanently enjoin the proposed merger, to enjoin consummation of the proposed merger and rescind the merger if consummated (or to award rescissionary damages), and an award of all costs of the Delaware Action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. Zalicus Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops treatments for patients suffering from pain and immuno- inflammatory diseases. ZALICUS INC: Expects Additional Merger-Related Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------- Zalicus Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on May 9, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that as a result of a Merger Agreement and the Merger, the Company may become subject to additional putative class action lawsuits on behalf of shareholders challenging the fairness of the merger consideration or making other claims regarding the merger consideration, the sale process or disclosures relating to the Merger. Such lawsuits may seek to prevent consummation of the Merger or to rescind any such transaction that has occurred. On April 15, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization with Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a privately held biopharmaceutical company ("Epirus") and BRunning, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Zalicus ("Merger Subsidiary"), pursuant to which the Merger Subsidiary will be merged with and into Epirus (the "Merger") at the effective time of the Merger, with Epirus continuing after the Merger as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zalicus. On May 7, 2014, the Company and Epirus entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger Agreement. The percentage of the combined company that Zalicus stockholders will own following the closing of the Merger is subject to adjustment based on the level of Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger. On a pro forma basis, based upon the number of shares of Zalicus common stock to be issued in the Merger, following the closing of the Merger (i) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 19% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own approximately 81% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger is equal to or in excess of $12,000, (ii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 17% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own approximately 83% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger is in excess of $9,000 but less than $12,000, and (iii) current Zalicus stockholders will own approximately 14% of the combined company and current Epirus equityholders will own approximately 86% of the combined company if Zalicus's net cash as of a certain determination date prior to the effective time of the Merger is equal to or less than $9,000. Zalicus is exploring different alternatives to increase its level of net cash. Zalicus Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops treatments for patients suffering from pain and immuno- inflammatory diseases. ********* 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. Ma. Cristina Canson, 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 * * *