/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140709.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 135 Headlines ABBVIE INC: "Morgan" Suit Consolidated in Androgel Products MDL AFOD LTD: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee AL-KARAWAN: Recalls Manna Wassalwa Soft Candy AMERICAN PENSION: Removed "Oliver" Suit to Utah District Court AMERICAN REALTY: Being Sold to Ventas for Too Little, Suit Claims ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Judge Dismisses Suits Over Extra Water in Beer ATTITUDES IMPORT: Recalls Tripod Lamps Due to Faulty Wiring AUTOLIV INC: Has MoU to Settle US Securities Class Actions AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Approval of Accord in LSI Purchase Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Certifies Overtime Suit as Class Action BANKRATE INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Lawsuit BEST BUY: Removed "Restrepo" Suit to Minnesota District Court BLUE CROSS: Illegally Misleads Policyholders, "Cowart" Suit Says CATERPILLAR INC: "Windy" Suit Consolidated in C13/C15 Engine MDL CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CHINA CERAMICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York CHOICES MARKETS: Recalls Le Moutier Goat Cheese Due to Toxin COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al-Karawan Manna Wassalwa CONAIR CORP: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Styling Irons COMPUTER SCIENCES: Systems Administrators File OT Class Action COUNTRY CROCUS: Recalls Bread Items Due to Undeclared Egg, Milk COVERALL NORTH AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms $994,800 in Atty Fees DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Cotner" Suit Over Pinnacle Hip Product DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued Over Defective Pinnacle Hip Product DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Deal OK'd in Suit Over Botched Forfeitures DS WATERS: "Haley" Suit Moved From Central to Northern California EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Perrill" Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas FRESH SPROUTS: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to Salmonella FROMAGERIE LE DETOUR: Recalls Le Verdict d'Alexina Cheese FROMAGERIE LE DETOUR: Recalls Sentinelle Cheese Due To Toxin GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Shan Lemon Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 641,121 Cars Due to Ignition Switch Woes GENERAL MOTORS: "Deighan" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Letterio" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Salazar" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Corbett" Class Suit in North Carolina GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Says Attorneys Must Focus on Due Process GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Partner Discusses Class Actions GENZYME: Judge Dismisses Class Action on Myozyme Complaint GOLDMAN SACHS: Former Employees Support Gender Bias Class Action GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baba Ghanouj Soup Starter Soup Base GREYSTONE ALLIANCE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act HARVEST MEATS: Unsuitable Ingredients Prompt Meat Products Recall HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Texas Court INTEL CORPORATION: Sued Over Termination of Worker INVACARE CANADA: Recalls Aquatec Backrest KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Breached Fiduciary Duties, Suit Claims KAWARTHA DAIRY: Recalls Chocolate Ice Cream KENAN TRANSPORT: Removed "Murray-Palmer" Suit to S.D. Florida KHG OF SAN ANTONIO: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says KUO HUA: Recalls Wafer & Noodle Products Due to Undeclared Wheat LAC BASKETBALL: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations LINKEDIN CORP: Members May Pursue Case on Promotional Spam LOUISVILLE BEDDING: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Pricing LOWE'S HOME: Accused of Gender Discrimination in Eastern Texas MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act MARS INC: Judge Green Lights Misbranding Claims MYFOOTPATH LLC: Faces "LeBlanc" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Small Leagues Profit Massively, Atty. Argues NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Worried About Bidding War for Athletes NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 8th Cir. Revives Claims of Secret Salary Cap NATIONAL PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Over Disabilities Act Violation NATIONAL RIFLE: Sued in Ohio Over Violation of Telephone Act NEVADA: Plaintiff in Health Insurance Class Action Dies NEVADA YELLOW: Cab Drivers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action NEW YORK TIMES: Accused of Selling Subscription Lists to Scammers NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NU-WAY TRANSPORTATION: "Loshbough" Suit Moved to C.D. Illinois QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Meeting Scheduled to Discuss Class Action RADIOSHACK CORP: State Court Sustains Demurrer in "Brookler" RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Orders Additional Proof in "Ordonez" Suit RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Order on Motion for Judgment in FLSA Suit SAMSUNG: Settles DRAM Price-Fixing Class Action for $310-Mil. SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Removed "Aycock" Class Suit to Arizona SPRINGFIELD, MA: Faces Class Action Over Public Day Programs STELLAR RECOVERY: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation SUNRISE PROPANE: Settles Class Action Over Deadly Blast for C$23MM SUPERIOR ENERGY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation in Pa. SUTTER HEALTH: Court Dismissed 3rd Amended "Sidibe" Complaint TREASURY WINE: Maurice Blackburn Files Shareholder Class Action ULTA SALON: Still Faces Labor Litigation in California Court UNITED SERVICES: Removed "Dye" Insurance Suit to S.D. Florida UNITED STATES: N.Y. Court Certifies Class Action v. Census Bureau ********* ABBVIE INC: "Morgan" Suit Consolidated in Androgel Products MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled Morgan v. Abbvie, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01432, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05002 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Androgel Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545. According to the MDL Order, on January 31, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it was "investigating the risk of stroke, heart attack, and death in men taking FDA-approved testosterone products." The Plaintiffs filed the Androgel-related actions in the wake of this announcement. All actions involve the Plaintiffs or their survivors, who used one or more testosterone replacement therapies and contend that their (or their decedent's) use of the drugs caused their injuries, which include heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. All testosterone replacement therapy actions will share factual questions regarding general causation and the background science regarding the role of testosterone in the aging body (possibly including examination of the recent studies that prompted the FDA investigation), as well as involve common regulatory issues in light of the FDA's announcement and subsequent actions, if any. ANDROGEL(R) is a form of testosterone replacement therapy, indicated for the treatment and prevention of low testosterone levels caused by hypogonadism. Hypogonadism is a specific condition of the sex glands which, in men, may result in the diminished production or nonproduction of testosterone. The Defendants developed, manufactured, promoted, marketed, distributed, tested, warranted and sold in interstate commerce the ANDROGEL(R) testosterone therapy. Plaintiff Wayne Morgan is represented by: Allan Berger, Esq. Andrew J. Geiger, Esq. ALLAN BERGER & ASSOCIATES, PLC 4173 Canal St. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 486-9481 E-mail: aberger@allan-berger.com ageiger@allan-berger.com AFOD LTD: Recalls Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 27, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Afod Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8997 Affected products: 200 g. Kopiko Astig 3inOne Instant Coffee with all codes where milk is not declared on the label AL-KARAWAN: Recalls Manna Wassalwa Soft Candy --------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 2, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Coffee Master Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9008 Affected products: 740 g. Al-Karawan (Arabic characters only) Manna Wassalwa Soft Candy with all codes where egg is not declared on the label AMERICAN PENSION: Removed "Oliver" Suit to Utah District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Oliver v. American Pension Services, et al., Case No. 140407746, was removed from the 3rd District Court, Salt Lake County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Central). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00487-DB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Christensen, Esq. Zane L. Christensen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC 9980 S 300 W #200 Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (801) 676-6447 E-mail: stevenchristen@gmail.com zanechristensen@christensenyounglaw.com Diane A. Thompson, Court-Appointed Receiver for American Pension Services, Inc., is represented by: Mark R. Gaylord, Esq. Melanie J. Vartabedian, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP (UT) 201 S Main, Suite 800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2221 Telephone: (801) 531-3000 E-mail: gaylord@ballardspahr.com vartabedianm@ballardspahr.com AMERICAN REALTY: Being Sold to Ventas for Too Little, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling American Realty Capital Healthcare too cheaply through an unfair process to Ventas Inc., for $11.33 a share or $2.6 billion, shareholders claim in New York County Court in Manhattan. ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Judge Dismisses Suits Over Extra Water in Beer -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that even if Anheuser-Busch intentionally waters down its beers, its compliance with federal regulations shields it from civil litigation, a federal judge ruled. "If the perceived injustice at issue in this case is as important to plaintiffs as they have suggested through the course of this litigation, they can make their concerns known to [federal regulators] and lobby for changes in the regulation," U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent wrote, dismissing multidistrict litigation consolidated from class actions filed across the country. The consumers accused Anheuser-Busch of watering down its staple alcoholic drinks including Budweiser, Bud Ice, Bud Light Platinum, Michelob Ultra, Natural Ice and Bud Light Lime, a process that it claims violates the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAAA). "Anheuser-Busch possesses technology that allows it to precisely identify and control the alcohol content of its malt beverages to within 'hundredths of one percent (0.01%),'" but that the company "routinely and intentionally adds extra water to its finished product to produce malt beverages that 'consistently have significantly lower alcohol content than the percentages displayed on its labels,'" the complaint states. Nugent dismissed the action, however, after focusing on Section 7.71(c) of the FAAA, which states: "For malt beverages containing 0.5 percent or more of alcohol by volume, a tolerance of 0.3 percent will be permitted, either above or below the stated percentage of alcohol." Anheuser-Busch contends -- and the plaintiffs never disputed -- that its products are within the 0.3 percent articulated in the FAAA, the court found. The claims thus turned on any profits gained from the alleged knowing misrepresentation of alcohol content on beer labels. "The problem is that the regulation itself does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional variances from the stated percentage," Nugent wrote. "Neither does it identify any circumstances or exceptions that would preclude application of the 0.3 percent tolerance for any malt beverages containing more than 0.5 percent alcohol by volume. There is no stated or referenced exception based on intent, actual knowledge, precision of available measuring technology, or the size and profitability of the manufacturer." Nugent shot down demands to use the court's "interpretive and equitable powers to create an exception to the tolerance when a misstatement of alcohol content, no matter the degree, is knowing or intentional." "A court cannot add language to a regulation that is unambiguous on its face, nor can it import or manufacture exceptions that were not included by the enacting agency," he wrote. "If a regulation or piece of legislation is not desirable, does not match the will of the citizens, or was, for any other reason, improvidently enacted or articulated, the legislative body has the power to revoke it or to modify it to conform more specifically to their intents and purposes," the judge added. "It is not the court's role to presume their collective intention, second guess their policy choices, or save them from their own mistakes or misstatements." Nugent also rejected claims that the allegedly watered-down beer violates the governing principles of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, formerly known as the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, to prevent any misleading or false information on consumer labels. "Section 7.71(c) is easily reconciled with the FAAA/TTB implementing statutes and regulations, if we simply accept that the TTB has reasonably determined that a stated alcohol content accurate to within a 0.3 percent in either direction provides adequate information to identify the nature and quality of the product, and that any variation within that range is not significant enough to be considered misleading and/or deceptive," Nugent wrote, abbreviating the bureau's name. Likewise the plaintiffs failed to show that the court should not afford the word "tolerance" its ordinary meaning, instead considering it as "a term of art that allows only 'unintentional deviations' from the goal of absolute accuracy." "Plaintiffs have offered no legal or industry specific authority for this proposition," Nugen wrote. "They have offered no source from the TTB or any other agency related to the regulation of alcoholic beverages and/or labeling standards in any food or beverage industry. They have failed to cite any definition of the word 'tolerance' in any dictionary, manual, handbook, or other source that limits the word 'tolerance' to the acceptance of 'unintentional deviations.'" ATTITUDES IMPORT: Recalls Tripod Lamps Due to Faulty Wiring ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 25, 2014 Posting date: June 25, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40209 Affected products: Lamps on wooden tripods The recall involves lamps on wooden tripods, sold with black or beige lampshades. The model numbers subject to the recall are I3609 (black lampshade) and I3610 (beige lampshade). The internal wiring of the lamp is faulty and may pose a risk of electrical shock to users. The product does not meet Canadian electrical standards and is therefore not authorized to bear the UL Certification Mark. Neither Attitudes Import nor Health Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. Approximately 33 units of the recalled product were sold in various stores across Canada. The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold from April 2014 to June 2014. Companies: Distributor Attitudes Import Laval Quebec Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the affected lamps and call Attitudes Import at 1-800-479-0199 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday for a refund. AUTOLIV INC: Has MoU to Settle US Securities Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv, Inc. on June 27 disclosed that it has entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of its pending US class action securities lawsuit. Autoliv, Inc., two of its officers and one of its employees are defendants in a purported class action securities lawsuit filed by the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis on April 17, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that Autoliv misrepresented or failed to disclose that antitrust violations by Autoliv artificially inflated Autoliv's earnings and stock price in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged class of purchasers who bought Autoliv common stock between October 26, 2010 and July 21, 2011. Autoliv has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Plaintiff reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit and the claims of the alleged class for a payment of $22.5 million. Autoliv expects to record a net expense of approximately $4.5 million in its second quarter results. The balance of the settlement amount will be paid by Autoliv's insurance carrier. The proposed agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by Autoliv or any of the individuals named in the complaint. The defendants are settling to eliminate the uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated with protracted litigation. The proposed agreement is subject to negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement among the parties and final approval by the court following notice to the settlement class and a fairness hearing. 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 (ALIV sdb). AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Approval of Accord in LSI Purchase Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a consolidated shareholder suit against Avago Technologies Limited over its acquisition of LSI filed a motion for final approval of a proposed settlement, according to Avago's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2014. Fifteen purported class action complaints have been filed by alleged stockholders of LSI against the company. Eight of those lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the other seven lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara on behalf of the same putative class as the Delaware actions (the "California Actions"). On January 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the Delaware actions into a single action (the "Delaware Action"). These actions generally allege that the company aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of LSI's board of directors in connection with the merger because the merger was not in the best interest of LSI, the merger consideration is unfair and certain other terms of the merger agreement are unfair. Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek to enjoin the merger, or in the event that an injunction is not entered and the merger closes, to rescind the merger or obtain unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On March 7, 2014, the parties to the Delaware Action reached an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action on a class wide basis, and negotiated a stipulation of settlement that was presented to the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 10, 2014. On March 12, 2014, the parties to the California Actions entered into a stipulation staying the California Actions pending resolution of the Delaware Action. On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement and award of attorneys' fees and expenses with the Delaware Court of Chancery. BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Certifies Overtime Suit as Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- City News Service reports that a lawsuit over overtime pay, led by appraisers against Bank of America, has been certified as a class action case by a federal judge in Santa Ana, an attorney representing the plaintiffs said on July 1. About 350 appraisers across the country will be part of the class, including about 185 from California, according to attorney Bryan Schwartz, who filed the lawsuit in April 2013 on behalf of Terry Boyd, a former appraiser for Bank of America and its in- house appraisal firm, Landsafe. Mr. Boyd, who was affiliated with the Ladera Ranch office, lives in Trabuco Canyon. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter approved certification of the class on June 27. Mr. Schwartz argues in the lawsuit that the appraisers should not be classified as administrators, which would exempt them from overtime pay, because they are not "engaged in overall strategy decisions for Bank of America," such as establishing guidelines for all appraisers. The appraisers are issued formulas to determine the value of property and do not have the authority to deviate, Mr. Schwartz said. Bank officials have claimed the appraisers are not entitled to overtime and breaks because they are company administrators or are "learned professionals," Mr. Schwartz said. "While it involves a lot of skill and training, it's not like a lawyer or a doctor, which requires a prolonged course of specialized instruction," Mr. Schwartz said. Bank officials have also claimed that many of the employees worked from home, so no one was denying them meals and breaks, but Judge Carter noted the company has to do more to make sure the employees get break time. "Employers do not escape liability simply by having a formal policy of providing meal and rest breaks," Judge Carter said in his ruling. In April, a $5.8 million settlement was reached in a class-action federal lawsuit on overtime pay and benefits covering about 350 "review appraisers," who oversee appraisers. That settlement was finalized, Mr. Schwartz said. In the current case, the appraisers will seek a summary judgment in their favor, but if that is not approved, a trial is expected around the middle part of next year, Mr. Schwartz said. Mr. Schwartz filed a similar federal lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase in April of last year. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered that case to mediation. BANKRATE INC: Reaches Agreement to Settle Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Bankrate, Inc. (NYSE: RATE) reached a proposed agreement, subject to Court approval, to settle the private securities class action pending against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bankrate would pay a total of $18 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Bankrate stock between June 16, 2011 and October 15, 2012. The proposed settlement further provides that Bankrate denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. Bankrate's insurers are expected to fund at least a substantial portion of the Settlement Fund. If this proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice to the Class members will be sent with information regarding the allocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund and instructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on the Settlement Fund. BEST BUY: Removed "Restrepo" Suit to Minnesota District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Restrepo, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No. 27-CV-14-9955, was removed from the Hennepin County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District of Minnesota. The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-02603-JNE-JSM to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: George W. Soule, Esq. Kevin P. Curry, Esq. SOULE & STULL LLC Eight West 43rd Street, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55409 Telephone: (612) 353-6491 Facsimile: (612) 573-6484 E-mail: gsoule@soulestull.com kcurry@soulestull.com The Defendant is represented by: Anne M. Lockner, Esq. Natalie I. DeBoer, Esq. Mitha V. Rao, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI LLP 800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: amlockner@rkmc.com nideboer@rkmc.com MVRao@rkmc.com BLUE CROSS: Illegally Misleads Policyholders, "Cowart" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Cross of California illegally misleads its policyholders about their coverage and which providers are in the policyholders' network, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to Courthouse News Service. Samantha Berryessa Cowart sued Blue Cross of California dba Anthem Blue Cross for breach of contract, breach of faith and business code violations. She claims that Anthem recently issued member identification cards that state, incorrectly, that many members are in Preferred Provider Organization plans (PPO) though they actually are in Exclusive Provider Organization plans (EPO). "In PPO plans, members have access to a huge network of Anthem providers and the ability to obtain covered treatment from out-of- network providers," the complaint states. "Unlike PPO plans, in EPO plans, members only have access to an extremely limited network of providers and no coverage for out-of-network providers. When the members provide their member identification cards to Anthem PPO providers, the providers render services believing that the members are in an Anthem PPO plan. As a result, members receive services from these providers only to have Anthem ultimately deny coverage on the ground that the providers are not in-network EPO providers. Thus, Anthem has wrongfully forced potentially thousands of their members to pay out of pocket for medical costs." Cowart seeks class certification, costs and exemplary damages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Glovsky, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT GLOVSKY 100 East Corson Street, Suite 200-A Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (877) 316-2093 Facsimile: (866) 243-2243 E-mail: sglovsky@scottglovskylaw.com CATERPILLAR INC: "Windy" Suit Consolidated in C13/C15 Engine MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Windy City Limousine LLC vs. Caterpillar, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04229, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04136 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In Re: Caterpillar Inc. C13 and C15 Engine Products Liability Litigation, MDL # 2540 and Lead Case No. 1:14-cv-03722-JBS-JS. The litigation arises out of allegations that an exhaust emission control system, called the Caterpillar Regeneration System, used in certain model year C13 and C15 engines manufactured by Caterpillar, is defective. In the actions, the Plaintiffs allege that buses or trucks in which these engines were installed suffered repeated failures and fault warnings, resulting in costly and time-consuming repairs. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of express and implied warranties, and all of the actions are asserted on behalf of putative state or nationwide classes of purchasers or lessees of vehicles with C13 or C15 engines. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. Burke, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1340 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: richard@complexlitgroup.com - and - Jamie Elisabeth Weiss, Esq. Zachary Jacobs, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 513 Central Avenue, Suite 300 Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 - and - Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq. BECKER, HOERNER THOMPSON & YSURSA, P.C. 5111 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62226 - and - Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (888) 584-0411 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com The Defendant is represented by: Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq. Mary E. Buckley, Esq. SEDWICK, DETER, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP One N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 641-9050 Facsimile: (312) 641-9530 E-mail: anthony.anscombe@sedgwicklaw.com mary.buckley@sedgwicklaw.com CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Feigie Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Central Portfolio Control, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04086 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com CHINA CERAMICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on July 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against China Ceramics Co., Ltd. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv- 4997, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased China Ceramics between March 30, 2012 and May 1, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased China Ceramics securities during the Class Period, you have until August 5, 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. China Ceramics is a leading Chinese manufacturer of ceramic tiles used for exterior siding and for interior flooring and design in residential and commercial buildings. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose and/or materially misstated its true financial condition. On May 1, 2014, NASDAQ announced that trading in China Ceramics was halted that day for "additional information requested" from the Company. On that same day, China Ceramics announced, among other things, that: (i) on April 30, 2014, the Company terminated the engagement of Grant Thornton as its principal independent registered public accountant; (ii) following the decision to terminate Grant Thornton, William L. Stulginsky tendered his resignation as an independent director and Chairman of the Audit Committee; (iii) the audit of the Company's consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013 has not been completed; (iv) the Company is unable to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013; and (v) during the preparation of its 2013 financial statements the Company identified a write down of assets for the fourth quarter resulting from unused capacity at its Hengdali facility, which is currently estimated to be $7.5 million. On November 1, 2013, Defendant D.W. Dong abruptly resigned as a Director of the Company and a member of the Audit Committee. He was replaced by Mr. Shen Cheng Liang. On November 13, 2013, the Company announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2013. In its announcement, the Company revealed a substantial asset write-down of property, plant and equipment. On April 27, 2014, Mr. Stulginsky abruptly resigned as a Director of the Company and Chairman of the Audit Committee. The circumstances surrounding his abrupt departure would be revealed days later. On April 28, 2014, Defendant Su resigned as a Director of the Company. On May 1, 2014, NASDAQ announced the halt in trading of the common shares of China Ceramics. On the same day, the Company filed a notification on Form 12b-25 with the SEC of its inability to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013. The following day, the Company announced the delay in the filing of its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2013 and partially revealed the circumstances surrounding the delay, which includes the firing of its auditor, the hiring of a new auditing firm, and the re-auditing of its prior financial statements. The Company also disclosed that it was notified by NASDAQ of its non-compliance with NASDAQ's continued listing requirement due to its inability to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013. In the same announcement, the Company also revealed a substantial write down of assets in the fourth quarter of 2013. On May 9, 2014, the Company filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, which provided further details regarding its firing of Grant Thornton and the re-auditing of its prior financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. As of July 2, 2014, trading in the Company's stock remains halted, rendering the Company's stock illiquid and virtually worthless. 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. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. CHOICES MARKETS: Recalls Le Moutier Goat Cheese Due to Toxin ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: June 26, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Choices Markets Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8989 The food recall warning issued on June 20, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Choices Markets is recalling Le Moutier Goat Cheese from the marketplace because it may contain the toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume the recalled product. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptoms of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: Le Moutier Goat Cheese with best before dates up to and including 2014SE19 COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al-Karawan Manna Wassalwa ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Coffee Master, Odeco Trading Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail Industry is recalling Al-Karawan brand Manna Wassalwa from the marketplace because it contains egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled product. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 740 g. Al-Karawan (Arabic characters only) Manna Wassalwa Soft Candy with all codes where egg is not declared on the label CONAIR CORP: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Styling Irons ------------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Conair Corp. pushed its styling irons with false claims, after national safety recalls in 1988 and 2007, a class action claims in Federal Court in Los Angeles. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Systems Administrators File OT Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Hartford Business Journal reports that systems administrators for Computer Sciences Corp., which has operations in Meriden, filed a class action lawsuit on July 2 alleging that the company failed to pay overtime wages. The suit says administrators performing hardware and software installations and other work often work late into the night and on weekends. They allege that CSC misclassified them as exempt from overtime pay. CSC settled a similar lawsuit in 2005 for $24 million, according to the three California law firms representing the plaintiffs in the case, which was filed in New Haven U.S. District Court. There are more than 100 potential members of the class, and claims exceed $5 million, according to the suit. One of the two named plaintiffs is Farmington resident Timothy Colby, who worked for CSC from Oct. 2011 to Feb. 2014. A CSC spokesman said the company does not comment on pending litigation. COUNTRY CROCUS: Recalls Bread Items Due to Undeclared Egg, Milk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 26, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Country Crocus Bakeshop Distribution: Manitoba Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8982 COVERALL NORTH AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms $994,800 in Atty Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the 9th Circuit deemed an award of nearly $1 million in attorneys' fees reasonable for a settlement between Coverall and several franchisees of the janitorial company. Sabrina Laguna, Carlos Acevedo and Teresa Salas brought the class action against Coverall North America in 2009, alleging they had spent substantial amounts of money buying Coverall "franchises," but became nothing more than employees improperly misclassified as independent contractors. "Defendants purport to sell cleaning 'franchises,' knowing that they lack sufficient business to satisfy their obligations under their franchise agreements," the third amended complaint alleged. Under the February 2012 settlement agreement, Coverall pledged to assign current franchisees customer accounts, as long as they pay their franchise fees in full. Former franchise owners will receive $475 each and $750 toward a new franchise. Key to the settlement is Coverall's obligation to update franchise agreements and change its operating procedures. Senior U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller in San Diego approved the settlement, which includes $994,800 in attorneys' fees. Amrit Singh filed the sole objection to the settlement, but the federal appeals court in Pasadena affirmed approval, 2-1. "We conclude that the district court correctly used the lodestar method in gauging the fairness of the attorneys' fee award," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the majority. The ruling notes that the nearly $1 million award came far below what the attorneys' could have recovered. "In its analysis, the District Court noted that the case had been contentiously litigated for over two years, and that the report submitted by plaintiffs' counsel showing that over 4,500 hours had been billed by six attorneys, a paralegal and a law clerk was fair and accurate," Gould wrote. "Using that number, the District Court calculated that the lodestar amount reached almost $3 million. At a third of the lodestar amount, the district court soundly concluded that the attorneys' fees award of $994,800 was reasonable." The amount class members will take home is disputed, according to the ruling, which notes that Singh has "clearly" underestimated the settlement value at $56,525, while the plaintiffs "may certainly be overstating the value of the settlement at $20 million." "The District Court reasonably surmised that even if the value of the settlement was $4 million -- only a part of the amount claimed by plaintiffs -- the attorneys' fee award would still be within the normal bounds of reasonableness," Gould wrote. In addition to cash for former franchisees, the settlement yields "significant benefits for plaintiffs," including "assignment of customer accounts and pledges for programmatic changes," Gould added. "The District Court elaborated that 'once franchises are assigned, franchisees will own a valuable business they can choose to sell or continue to operate." U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, sitting by designation from San Francisco, wrote in dissent that the trial court did not have enough "crucial" information to make a decision about the settlement or the award of attorneys' fees. He noted that the deal does not specify who is eligible to receive "customer accounts," and that the monetary relief to the class is uncertain since unclaimed funds will revert back to Coverall. "The case should be remanded for fuller development of the record," Chen wrote. "I also believe this case affords this court an opportunity to provide additional guidance to the district courts in their assessment of proposed class action settlements." DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Cotner" Suit Over Pinnacle Hip Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Cotner v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-02347-K (N.D. Tex., June 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendants placed defective medical devices, including Pinnacle Hip Replacement System and the Pinnacle Cup, into the stream of interstate commerce that was implanted in the Plaintiff. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson are New Jersey corporations headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. The Defendants design, manufacture, market and sell medical devices, including reconstructive hip implants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Keane, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: rkeane@simonlawpc.com DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued Over Defective Pinnacle Hip Product ------------------------------------------------------------ Buddy Blaydes v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-02353-K (N.D. Tex., June 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, marketing and distribution of the Pinnacle Hip by placing the alleged defective product into the stream of commerce as the product causes metal fretting, corrosion, metallosis, necrosis, other health problems, and the product has a shorter life span and increases the need for additional surgeries. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson are New Jersey corporations headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., is a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. The Defendants design, manufacture, market and sell medical devices, including reconstructive hip implants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Keane, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: rkeane@simonlawpc.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Deal OK'd in Suit Over Botched Forfeitures ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge approved an $855,000 settlement of a class action accusing D.C. police of failing to return cash seized from suspects it then failed to prosecute. Anthony Hardy and Donnell Monts brought the lawsuit in June 2009, challenging the district's "Forfeiture Statute," which allows police to seize all cash "allegedly related to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act." The statute also requires the mayor of Washington, D.C., to give notice by certified mail. To retrieve their money, affected individuals must file a claim within 30 days. The district meanwhile has up to a year to file the civil forfeiture action. Hardy said $127 in cash was taken from him after his arrest in December 2006, while Monts said police seized $823 in cash from him after his July 2006 arrest. The district allegedly "never provided notice of forfeiture of the money seized, nor brought a forfeiture proceeding within one year." U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper approved the $855,000 settlement on June 20, 2014, eight years after the filing of that lawsuit. The deal includes $2,500 for the class representatives. Another $14,000 will go toward attorneys' expenses, while another $283,000 will go toward attorney's fees. An additional $52,600 went to the Class Action Administration Inc., while $500,000 was set aside for approved claims. "The size of the payment pool and the percentage of class members who responded are on par with typical class action settlement awards," Cooper wrote. "Nothing in the course of this litigation indicates a lack of general skill or efficiency on the part of plaintiffs' attorney. To the contrary, counsel appears to have handled the case quite effectively." The underlying lawsuit was filed by attorney Henry Escoto. The case is Anthony Hardy, et al. v. District Of Columbia, Case No. 1:09-cv-01062 (CRC), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. DS WATERS: "Haley" Suit Moved From Central to Northern California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Arjay Haley v. DS Waters of America Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-07841, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-02996-KAW to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Keith Haines, Esq. Stephen Z. Boren, Esq. BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN 5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 937-9900 Facsimile: (323) 937-9910 E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com sboren@bollaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Catherine M. Dacre, Esq. Emily Eschenbach Barker, Esq. Eric E. Hill, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission St., Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: cdacre@seyfarth.com ebarker@seyfarth.com ehill@seyfarth.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Perrill" Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Perrill, et al. v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 0:13-cv-03333, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin). The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00612 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Information Services LLC is a consumer reporting agency headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Ogilvie, Esq. Carol M. Brewer, Esq. ANDERSON OGILVIE & BREWER LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 914 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 651-1952 E-mail: andy@aoblawyers.com carol@aoblawyers.com - and - Mark L. Heaney, Esq. HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC 13911 Ridgedale Drive, Suite 110 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Telephone: (952) 933-9655 Facsimile: (952) 544-1308 E-mail: mark@heaneylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Barry Goheen, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4618 E-mail: bgoheen@kslaw.com - and - J. Anthony Love, Esq. KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P. 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 815-6500 Facsimile: (404) 541-3284 - and - Joseph W. Lawver, Esq. MESSERLI & KRAMER 1400 Fifth Street Towers 100 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-1217 Telephone: (612) 672-3600 Facsimile: (612) 672-3777 E-mail: jlawver@messerlikramer.com FRESH SPROUTS: Recalls Fresh Bean Sprouts Due to Salmonella ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 7, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Fresh Sprout International Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail Fresh Sprout International Ltd. is recalling Fresh Sprouts brand Fresh Bean Sprouts from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 454 g / 1 lb. Fresh Sprouts Fresh Bean Sprouts with UPC 14/JUL/07 8 27468 00100 0 FROMAGERIE LE DETOUR: Recalls Le Verdict d'Alexina Cheese --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 27, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Fromagerie Le Detour (2003) Inc. Distribution: British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8996 The food recall warning issued on June 26, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Fromagerie Le Detour (2003) Inc. is recalling Le Verdict d'Alexina and Grey Owl cheese from the marketplace because they may contain the toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume the recalled products. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptoms of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. FROMAGERIE LE DETOUR: Recalls Sentinelle Cheese Due To Toxin ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Fromagerie Le Detour (2003) Inc. Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail The food recall warning issued on June 27, 2014, has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Fromagerie Le D‚tour (2003) Inc. is recalling Sentinelle cheese from the marketplace because it may contain the toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. Also affected by this alert is the above product which may have been sold in smaller packages, cut and wrapped by some retailers. Consumers are advised to contact the retailer to determine if they have the affected product. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptoms of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: various Sentinelle Surface ripened soft cheese GAGAN FOODS: Recalls Shan Lemon Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Gagan Foods International Limited Distribution: Possibly National Extent of the product distribution: Retail Gagan Foods International Ltd. is recalling Shan brand Lemon Pickles from the marketplace because they contain mustard which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to mustard do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 641,121 Cars Due to Ignition Switch Woes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 641121 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014284 TC ID number: 2014284 Manufacturer recall number: 14350 On certain vehicles, a defect in the ignition switch could allow the switch to move out of the "run" position if the key ring is carrying added weight or the vehicle goes off-road or is subjected to some other jarring event. If this were to occur, engine power, power steering and power braking would be affected, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. The timing of the key movement out of the run position, relative to the activation of the sensing algorithm of the crash event, may also result in the airbags not deploying in a subsequent collision, increasing the risk of injury. Correction: For each key, dealers will install two key rings and modify the key ring opening shape. Note: Until the correction is performed, all items should be removed from the key ring. Affected products: Maker Model Model Year(s) Affected ----- ----- ---------------------- PONTIAC GRAND AM 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 CHEVROLET IMPALA 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 CHEVROLET MALIBU 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 OLDSMOBILE INTRIGUE 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 OLDSMOBILE ALERO 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 GENERAL MOTORS: "Deighan" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit titled Deighan v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00458, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04858-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR. 429 Forbes Avenue 519 Allegheny Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 E-mail: Yateslaw@aol.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Letterio" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit styled Letterio, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00488, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04857-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. Plaintiff Noel Joyce Letterio is represented by: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR. 429 Forbes Avenue 519 Allegheny Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 E-mail: Yateslaw@aol.com Plaintiff Austin DePalma is represented by: Michael Dennis Donovan, Esq. DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 732-6067 Facsimile: (215) 732-8060 E-mail: mdonovan@donovanaxler.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Salazar" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit captioned Salazar, III v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00362, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04859-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cory S. Fein, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 1331 Lamar, Suite 1070 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com csf@caddellchapman.com Defendants General Motors LLC, General Motors Company and General Motors Holding, LLC are represented by: Darrell Lee Barger, Esq. HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP 800 N Shoreline Blvd., Suite 2000 North Tower Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 866-8009 Facsimile: (361) 866-8039 E-mail: dbarger@hdbdlaw.com Defendants Delphi Automotive PLC and DPH-DAS LLC are represented by: Ilana Volkov, Esq. COLE, SCHOTZ, MEISEL, FORMAN & LEONARD, P.A. 25 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 489-3000 Facsimile: (201) 678-6269 E-mail: ivolkov@coleschotz.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Corbett" Class Suit in North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ Diana Corbett, Michael Barnes and Gertrude Barnes, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 7:14-cv-00139- D (E.D.N.C., July 1, 2014) alleges fraud. GM is currently battling numerous lawsuits arising from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE MARTIN LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 E-mail: jsm@rhinelawfirm.com jrr@rhinelawfirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Says Attorneys Must Focus on Due Process -------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber urged attorneys for General Motors and for its customers suing over defective ignition switches to attempt to agree on facts as much as possible before litigating further. The customers in In re: Motors Liquidation Co., 09-bk-50026 are seeking to hold GM liable for economic losses they suffered as a result of cars being recalled. Judge Gerber ruled at a hearing on July 2 that the parties should submit briefs on whether the customers were denied due process by the 2009 approval of GM's bankruptcy sale, which absolved "new GM" from claims. He also asked for briefing on possible remedies and on whether any of the claims were against "old GM." He said it would be premature to brief the issue of whether GM had committed "fraud on the court" that could make it subject to liability despite the 2009 order. At one point, he sketched a "hypothetical" if it was shown that GM had deliberately concealed from the court its knowledge of the faulty switches, saying such a finding would constitute fraud on the court. Judge Gerber said his plan was trying to hit "the sweet spot between fairness and getting to the right result." Arthur Steinberg, a partner at King & Spalding who represents GM, said during the hearing that "everything flows from the procedural due process issue" and that if GM prevailed on that issue, the other issues would become moot. Elihu Inselbuch -- einselbuch@capdale.com -- a member of Caplin & Drysdale, similarly said that "if this court were to decide that issue against us, presumably we wouldn't have to reach the remedy issue." The next status conference is set for Aug. 5. GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Partner Discusses Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Benzinga reports that earlier this year Hagens Berman, the law firm that won a $1.6 billion class action suit against Toyota for the company's wave of 2009-2011 recalls, was appointed interim lead counsel of the class action lawsuit against General Motors. Unless the court appoints another firm, Hagens Berman will lead the case. In an exclusive interview with Benzinga, Hagens Berman partner Rob Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- discussed the case. Mr. Carey began by describing one of the key differences between Toyota's and General Motors' situations; that Toyota's recalls dealt with complex code that would be difficult for the average jury to understand. The General Motors case, on the other hand, deals with "mechanical engineering that somebody with a third grade education can understand." This does not, however, mean a settlement should be reached more quickly; the 2009 bankruptcy filing could be a major complication. Mr. Carey described the atmosphere after GM had already begun recalling vehicles. "No one had filed yet and that tells you a lot about the field of the bankruptcy," he said, particularly since lawyers typically do not sit on their hands when a situation of this nature arises. General Motors has implied that it is not responsible for economic loss before the company filed for bankruptcy. "Now, I think there has been so much of a firestorm beyond that point," Carey notes, "that it's going to be hard for anyone to say at some point that GM shouldn't answer for some of the harm." The economic loss lawsuit (i.e., lost resale value due to the recalls) will have much more of an impact on the company than the death and serious injury cases, according to Mr. Carey. A few hundred people may be affected by injury, but "almost 30 million vehicles have been recalled and it's only halfway through the year," he said. "The previous record [of cars recalled in a year] was 10 million, held by the GM . . . I can't tell you how astounding this recall number is." Almost every car recalled is also affected by a drop in resale value. This is especially true for consumers of General Motors' entry level vehicles. The Chevy Cobalt, for example, has given up roughly $1,000 of value on a $5,000 car, according to Mr. Carey. GENZYME: Judge Dismisses Class Action on Myozyme Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that there is no evidence Genzyme executives intentionally deceived shareholders about its bid to produce the orphan drug Myozyme on a larger scale, the 1st Circuit has ruled. U.S. District Judge George O'Toole presided over the consolidated shareholder class action against Genzyme, which took aim at a series of errors that led to the closure of the drugmaker's plant in Allston, Mass., and seriously delayed approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a license to make its drug Myozyme on a larger scale. Myozyme is the only drug available for the treatment of Pompe disease, a rare metabolic disorder. Its designation as an orphan drug comes from the fact that pharmaceutical companies like Genzyme would otherwise abandon research of the condition, which affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States, but for the incentives provided by Congress. The class would have included anyone who bought shares of Genzyme between October 2007 and November 2009, during which time the company consistently expressed optimism about its application for a license to produce the drug Myozyme in a 2000-liter bioreactor instead of a 160-liter bioreactor. To differentiate the two processes, Genzyme called the drug produced in the larger reactor Lumizyme. But shareholders said the company kept quiet when it suffered several bioreactor failures, and when the FDA advised the company to make significant changes to its proposed manufacturing process for Lumizyme. After the third bioreactor failure, Genzyme publicly attributed the failures to the outbreak of a rare virus, a contamination linked to the manufacturing issues previously identified by the FDA. And in November 2009, the company issued a public notice advising health care providers that vials of all its drugs were found to be contaminated with foreign particles, including steel and non-latex rubber, also because of problems at its Allston plant. A 2010 lawsuit by the FDA left Genzyme on the hook for a $175 million settlement. Judge O'Toole nevertheless dismissed the shareholder action, and the Boston-based 1st Circuit affirmed, finding no evidence that Genzyme executives believed their optimistic statements about Lumizyme's prospects to be misleading. "The allegations set forth in the complaint fail to convey a cogent and compelling inference of deceitful intent, or reckless disregard of the truth, on the part of defendants," Judge Juan Torruella wrote for the three-judge appellate panel. "Scienter has not been pled, and, accordingly, we affirm the district court's order of dismissal." Genzye was under no affirmative duty to disclose the bioreactor failures until it discovered their cause, which took several months, but it did inform the market of its tightening product supplies, according to the ruling. "Under these circumstances, where Genzyme kept the market apprised of supply shortages, we are not compelled to infer that defendants acted with fraudulent intent by taking the time to investigate, and discover, what was essentially unknown to them," the 36-page opinion states. The panel did, however, note its "discomfort" with O'Toole's refusal to let the shareholders amend their claims. "We emphatically reiterate that the PSLRA does not require that orders of dismissal be with prejudice," Torruella wrote, abbreviating Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. "This is particularly so in light of the fact that the PSLRA is a tool designed to curb vexatious litigation, not a mechanism for denying bona fide claimants their day in court." Genzyme was bought by Sanofi-Aventis, a French drugmaker, in 2011 for $20.1 billion. GOLDMAN SACHS: Former Employees Support Gender Bias Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Huddleston, Jr., writing for Fortune, reports that an ongoing gender discrimination lawsuit against Goldman Sachs filed four years ago by three former female employees now has the support of several additional former employees who allege the financial giant has a "boy's club" atmosphere where women are mocked and excluded by their male colleagues. The group is seeking class action status from a federal judge in Manhattan in a suit that looks to sue Goldman on behalf of current and former employees at the bank whose tenures stretch as far back as July 2002. Several former employees filed documents on July 1 supporting class certification of the lawsuit, which accuses Goldman of hosting an environment that is "hostile to women." In a statement sent to multiple news outlets, a Goldman spokesman said the filings on July 1 were not a surprise and that they "lack merit." One former vice president in the bank's securities division, Denise Shelley, wrote in her letter to the court that female employees at Goldman were often hired based on their attractiveness and then asked to pitch sales to clients only to later have their intelligence mocked by male colleagues. Ms. Shelley says such women were referred to as "bimbos" by male colleagues, and she remembers one time when a new female hire was mocked for having been a beauty pageant winner. "The culture that I experienced at Goldman Sachs sexualized women in a way that made it difficult for us to be taken seriously as professional peers and diminished our ability to be fairly reviewed, compensated, and promoted in comparison to our male peers," Ms. Shelley wrote in a court filing. She also claims that women were often excluded from social events outside of work and that, after a rare occasion where she did join her male colleagues at a bar, she was later called a "party girl" by a managing director at the bank. Another vice president and trader, Allison Gamba, asserts in her own court filing supporting class certification that Goldman frequently passed her over for promotions that went instead to male colleagues with less impressive qualifications than her own. Ms. Gamba also accuses the bank of holding her pregnancies and motherhood against her by ceasing to even nominate her for promotion once she started having children. Ms. Gamba says she believes that "Goldman Sachs is incapable of reforming itself to treat its female employees equally," and that women at the bank are often unwilling to formally complain about sexual discrimination and harassment because they fear it will damage their careers. In addition to seeking certification as a class action, the suit seeks unspecified damages as well as court-imposed injunctions that would force Goldman to take action to eliminate gender bias at the bank. GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Baba Ghanouj Soup Starter Soup Base ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: June 27, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sesame Seeds Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Greenworld Food Express Inc., Salem Brothers Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8992 Industry is recalling Ziyad brand Baba Ghanouj and Soup Starter Soup Base from the marketplace because they contain milk and sesame which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk or sesame should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk or sesame, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. GREYSTONE ALLIANCE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Benzion Yossef, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Greystone Alliance LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 04087 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com HARVEST MEATS: Unsuitable Ingredients Prompt Meat Products Recall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 27, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Harvest Meats Co. Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nunavut, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories Extent of the product distribution: Retail, Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 8991 HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Texas Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Hastings Entertainment, Inc. is facing a securities lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs' counsel sent the Company a demand letter dated March 20, 2014 demanding that the Board of Directors commence an action on behalf of the Company against the Directors. The Board of Directors appointed a Special Committee composed of independent directors to review the plaintiffs' allegations. The Committee has not yet completed its review or made any determination as to what action, if any, should be taken in response to those allegations. On May 9, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed, alleging material omissions and misstatements in the company's Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14 and 20 of the Exchange Act. The action, captioned CV-00114-J-Sarabjeet Singh, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Hastings Entertainment, Inc., John H. Marmaduke, Jeffrey G. Shrader, Ann S. Lieff, Frank O. Marrs, Danny W. Gurr, Draw Another Circle, LLC, Hendrix Acquisition Corp., Joel Weinshanker and National Entertainment Collectibles Association, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division. The lawsuit, which purports to be a class action, seeks an injunction preventing consummation of the Merger, rescinding the Merger, if consummated, or granting rescissionary damages in an unspecified amount, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and an award of costs and expenses. INTEL CORPORATION: Sued Over Termination of Worker -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Intel retaliated against an employee for participating in a sexual harassment investigation against a manager, the fired worker claims in court. INVACARE CANADA: Recalls Aquatec Backrest ----------------------------------------- Starting date: July 4, 2014 Posting date: July 4, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Miscellaneous Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40369 Affected products: Aquatec Fixed Backrest The recall involves the Aquatec Fixed Backrest. The Aquatec Fixed Backrest is an accessory for the Mobile Shower and Toilet commode and is used for secure patient positioning. The month and year of manufacture are stamped on the back of product. The Aquatec Fixed Backrest may become detached from the frame when an uneven load is applied by the users back to either the top or bottom of the backrest, posing a fall hazard. Invacare Canada LP received one reported consumer incident but no injury resulted. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products in Canada. Approximately 450 backrests have been sold in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold from Aug. 2013 to April 2014. Companies: Importer Invacare Canada LP Mississauga Ontario Canada Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the affected backrests and contact the company to have it replaced. A replacement backrest will be issued at no additional charge. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Breached Fiduciary Duties, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Kansas City Southern officers exposed the company to hundreds of millions of dollars of losses by "breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of law," a shareholder claims in a derivative lawsuit. Bruce Lerner sued 12 company officers in Federal Court. Kansas City Southern is a holding company with domestic and international rail operations in North America. KCS has a concession from the Mexican government that allows it to operate strategic routes between Mexico City and Texas. The lawsuit states: "Defendants improperly touted KCS's business prospects and issued aggressive financial guidance to demonstrate to the market and to the corporate debt rating agencies in particular, that the company's business metrics and financial prospects were deserving of an investment grade debt rating. In particular, defendants hyped that the company was then on track to achieve during fiscal 2013: (i) 'mid single-digit volume growth, along with mid single-digit pricing [growth]'; (ii) 'revenue growth ... higher on a percentage growth basis than 2012'; and (iii) improved 'operating ratio.' The company's guidance was overstated because it failed to take into account several negative trends affecting the company's business, including that KCS's utility coal volumes and crude oil shipments declined more drastically than defendants led the market to anticipate, that carloads in the company's chemical & petroleum shipments to Mexico declined due to operational issues with the company's customers in Mexico, that the company's anticipated ramp-up of its Mexican auto shipment business was not advancing at the rate the market was led to believe as the new plants were not coming on line, and that the company's heavily touted efforts to build the Port Arthur crude oil terminal were riddled with operational difficulties pushing the positive financial benefits of the expansion effort off further into the future." Lerner claims evidence of the defendants' wrongdoing began to emerge on Jan. 24 this year, when KCS issued a press release announcing disappointing 2013 fourth quarter fiscal results. KCS reported a net income of $113.8 million or $1.03 a share on revenues of $615.6 million. Lerner said that fell below the projected net income of $1.10 a share on $618.1 million. For 2013, net income fell to $3.98 a share, below the $4.05 a share the investment community had expected based on the defendants' statements, the complaint states. Also, Lerner claims that KCS's operating ratio had increased, even though the market was led to believe that it was declining. Lerner claims KCS officials blamed the poor earnings on a variety of factors during a conference call. He says some of the excuses included a plant shutdown, unplanned plant outages, reduced shipments to another plant, weakness in petroleum shipments and increased operating expenses. "Then, on February 18, 2014, the market learned that the lower house of the Mexican legislature had approved a new bill to increase rail competition in Mexico," the complaint states. "This legislation, if passed by Mexico's Senate, would give third-party companies access to KCS's currently exclusive freight and passenger rail networks. The Wall Street Journal, in a February 19, 2014 report entitled, 'Railroads and Mexican Government on Collision Course: Kansas City Southern and Grupo Mexico Fight Bill That Would Strip Exclusive Track Rights,' explained that the Mexican government had long been dissatisfied with KCS's performance under the concession. "Upon disclosure of the company's true business health and limited financial outlook, KCS's market capitalization plunged by nearly 22 percent, erasing over $2.8 billion in value. As a direct result of the individual defendants' wrongdoing, the company is now the subject of a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of investors who purchased KCS shares. The securities class action lawsuit poses the risk of hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to the company." Lerner seeks damages, disgorgement of profits and a ruling requiring KCS to improve its internal structure to protect shareholders, including strengthening the company's disclosure controls; strengthening the board's supervision of operations; and allowing shareholders to elect three members to the board. He is represented by Tim Dollar of Dollar, Burns & Becker. KAWARTHA DAIRY: Recalls Chocolate Ice Cream ------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 30, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Kawartha Dairy Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8998 Affected products: 1.5 L. Kawartha Dairy Chocolate Ice Cream with Chocolate Peanut Butter Ice Cream lid and contain Chocolate Peanut Butter Ice Cream KENAN TRANSPORT: Removed "Murray-Palmer" Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Murray-Palmer v. Kenan Transport, LLC, Case No. CACE 14-009447, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-61496-BB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the Complaint purports to bring a claim for unpaid overtime and a claim for retaliatory discharge. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305)416-5000 Facsimile: (305)416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Marilyn G. Moran, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2310 Facsimile: (407) 418-2327 E-mail: mmoran@fordharrison.com - and - Todd S. Aidman, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 261-7800 Facsimile: (813) 261-7899 E-mail: taidman@fordharrison.com KHG OF SAN ANTONIO: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Marez and Veronica Ayala, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KHG of San Antonio, L.L.C., d/b/a Tiffany's Cabaret, Tim Eidson, Rick Peffer, Robert O'Hayon, Phillip G. Phifer, Mike Fulton, Russell Ingram, R. Neck Enterprises, Inc., M.R.G. Enterprises, Inc., and E&I Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00585-OLG (W.D. Tex., July 1, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ricardo Jose Prieto, Esq. Martin A. Shellist, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net mshellist@eeoc.net KUO HUA: Recalls Wafer & Noodle Products Due to Undeclared Wheat ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 26, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Kuo Hua Trading Company Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8977 LAC BASKETBALL: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Donald Sterling misclassified Clippers employees as unpaid interns to stiff them for wages, a former "fan relations intern" claims in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Frank Cooper sued LAC Basketball Club Inc. and The Sterling Family Trust, alleging wage and hour violations and unfair competition. Cooper claims he worked without pay at the Staples Center as a "fan relations intern" from Sept. 28 to Nov. 17, 2012. He claims that Sterling and the Clippers misclassify employees as interns, to duck their responsibility to pay wages, and do not provide the training that would make the intern classification legal. "Plaintiff's unpaid work for defendants is part of a broader trend where employees are being misclassified as unpaid 'interns' in an effort by employers to avoid paying wages as required by state laws and FLSA [the Fair Labor Standards Act]," the complaint states. "These programs purport to be training programs, but provide little value to the worker while enriching the employer through the provision of free labor. The result is that while certain employers save wage expenses, the economy as a whole suffers from fewer paid job opportunities. Moreover, the economic and moral wellbeing of our nation is compromised due to the further marginalization of workers who cannot provide free services but rather must accept low wage employment in other sectors, thus foreclosing certain employment options, and indeed entire fields, from the already vulnerable. "Defendants' failure to pay interns for years runs afoul of basic wage-and-hour laws, including the FLSA and California labor laws, which require that employers pay all of their employees - even those who are inexperienced or entry-level - the minimum wage and overtime. The law provides no exemption for interns unless they are in a vocational training program, and the United States Department of Labor uses a six-factor test to evaluate whether a worker is a trainee or an employee. A worker is a trainee only if he or she receives training similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational instruction. The employer cannot derive any immediate advantage from the intern's work or require the intern to do the work of regular employees. '[I]f the interns are engaged in the operations of the employer or are performing productive work (for example, filing, performing other clerical work, or assisting customers), then the fact that they may be receiving some benefits in the form of a new skill or improved work habits will not exclude them from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements because the employer benefits from the interns' work.'" Cooper claims Sterling et al. misclassified interns beginning at least in September 2012. He seeks class certification and damages for wage and hour violations, unpaid wages, and unfair competition. He is represented by Nicholas Ranallo -- nick@ranallolawoffice.com -- of Boulder Creek. LINKEDIN CORP: Members May Pursue Case on Promotional Spam ---------------------------------------------------------- Annie Youderian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that LinkedIn users can pursue claims that the company spammed their email contacts with pesky "reminder" invitations to join the networking site, a federal judge ruled. Disgruntled users sued LinkedIn last September, claiming it hacked into their external email accounts, harvested their contacts and then barraged those contacts with promotional spam. LinkedIn urged U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., to dismiss the federal class action, saying the users explicitly consented to the challenged actions by clicking through a series of permission screens. The company suggested that the class members were perhaps simply "embarrassed" by the repeat invitations they authorized LinkedIn to send to their contacts. The plaintiffs, including several well-educated professionals, countered that "a few cryptic disclosures on a website" do not give LinkedIn the right to "harvest users' email addresses and broadcast users' persona to hundreds of people." Koh largely agreed with LinkedIn's claim that the permission screens amounted to consent, as a reasonable user would have understood that the site was collecting email addresses from the user's external email account. LinkedIn also "clearly discloses" its intention to invite those email contacts to connect to the user via LinkedIn, Koh said in her 39-page ruling, which includes various screen shots of LinkedIn's sign-up process. She granted LinkedIn's motion to dismiss claims for violations of the Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Act and California's Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act. Regarding the state penal code, Koh said the lawsuit fails to explain how LinkedIn "has circumvented a technical or code-based barrier" when it allegedly "tunnel[s] through any open email program on a user's desktop." But Koh said the consent granted through permission screens ends with the first invitation and does not necessarily apply to follow-up "reminder emails" -- the purported spam that class members say damaged their professional reputations. "Although the court concludes that plaintiffs have consented to LinkedIn's initial endorsement email, the court finds that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they did not consent to the second and third reminder endorsement emails," Koh wrote. "Specifically, the second and third endorsement emails could injure users' reputations by allowing contacts to think that the users are the types of people who spam their contacts or are unable to take the hint that their contacts do not want to join their LinkedIn network." She allowed the class members to pursue their right-of-publicity and unlawful competition claims against LinkedIn over the second and third reminder emails. She also gave them 30 days to again amend their complaint, finding no "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive by plaintiffs, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or undue prejudice to LinkedIn." LOUISVILLE BEDDING: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Pricing ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that directors of Louisville Bedding Co. are taking the company private through an unfair process at an unfair price of $14.37 a share, shareholders claim in Chancery Court in Wilmington, Del. LOWE'S HOME: Accused of Gender Discrimination in Eastern Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Kellie Kifer v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, f/k/a Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00730 (E.D. Tex. Jun 28, 2014) is an employment discrimination case involving gender. Ms. Kifer alleges that her gender was a motivating factor in the Defendant's decision to fire her. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, formerly known as Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., is an active North Carolina corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wade A. Forsman, Esq. P.O. Box 918 Sulphur Springs, TX 75483-0918 Telephone: (903) 689-4144 Facsimile: (903) 689-7001 E-mail: wade@forsmanlaw.com MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Amelio, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-04004-JKG (E.D. Pa., June 30, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD. 115 Federal Plaza, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com MARS INC: Judge Green Lights Misbranding Claims ----------------------------------------------- Deshayla Strachan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Mars must face claims that it makes misleading claims about the calories and nutrient content of its candy, including M&Ms and Dove bars, a federal judge ruled. Phyllis Gustavson hopes to represent a class with misbranding claims against Mars Inc. and Mars Chocolate North America LLC. The complaint takes aim at the labels of five Mars products -- M&Ms, Twix, dark chocolate Dove, milk chocolate Dove and Snickers -- and says Gustavson has spent more than $25 on these products since 2008. Regarding nutrient content, Gustavson says the packaging for a 3.3 ounce dark chocolate Dove bar includes statements that the chocolate bar is a "natural source of cocoa flavanols" and that the company's "CocoaPro" process "helps retain much of the naturally occurring cocoa flavanols" in cocoa beans. But Gustavson says federal regulations state that a nutrient- content claim may only use particular terms defined in FDA regulations. The term "source" is not among these defined terms unless preceded by the modifier "good," according to the complaint. Companies may also not make content claims unless the food product contains some fixed percentage of the established daily value for the nutrient in question, the complaint alleges. Gustavson says the Dove chocolate bar cannot possibly contain adequate flavanols to meet these requirements because the FDA has not established a recommended daily value for flavanols. The claims about how Mars represents the calories in its products are similar. Gustavson says the packaging label is deceptive because the statements are not accompanied by the disclosure, mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, that directs consumers to consult the full nutrition information panel located on the back of the package for further information regarding the levels of fat and saturated fat contained in the products. Though the statements refer to a "daily value" for calories, Gustavson says the FDA has not established a daily value for calories. Even if a daily value for calories did exist, the percentage statements Mars makes would allegedly still be misleading because recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that individuals strictly limit the amount of calories they consume in the form of sugar and fat, both of which are present at high levels in Mars' products. The class claims Mars violated California's Unfair Competition Law, its False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., refused to dismiss any part of the complaint. In its motion, Mars had claimed that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act pre-empts the claims regarding flavanol and calorie content. It also said that the calorie claims implicate technical and policy questions that are under active consideration by the FDA and thus are committed to the primary jurisdiction of the FDA. Gustavson countered that she seeks to enforce only what FDA and the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires. In refusing to dismiss, Judge Koh agreed that the claims "do not seek to impose requirements beyond what federal law requires.' Mars had also argued that its statement "natural source of cocoa" only means that cocoa is naturally present in the chocolate, without characterizing the level of the flavanol. But Koh agreed with Gustavson that the word "source" did imply that the nutrient was present at a percentage higher than zero. "At the very least, stating that a food product is a 'source' of a given nutrient indicates that the nutrient is present at a level higher than zero, and the fact that the manufacturer chooses to note that its product is a 'source' of that nutrient arguably implies that the nutrient is present in substantial quantities," Koh wrote. "The final [FDA] regulation includes only 'good source' as a defined term, the FDA explained, because without the modifier 'good,' the word 'source' would 'not enable the consumer to conclude that the level of nutrient present is less than 'high.' This reasoning indicates that the FDA was concerned that 'source of' claims would suggest a certain level of nutrients to consumers." Though Mars said the FDA is actively considering front-of-pack calorie-related labeling, Koh said this does not present a jurisdictional issue. That process "is not sufficiently concrete or advanced as to warrant dismissal of plaintiff's calorie claims," the 18-page ruling states. Gustavson had originally brought her claims against Mars in a 2012 action against Wrigley, and Mars pointed out that the court had dismissed a claim regarding serving size in the Wrigley case based on the FDA's active consideration of the issue. But Koh said "closer examination of the FDA materials cited by defendants reveals that the FDA's plans for regulating front-of- package calorie statements in a manner that would affect the outcome of this case are far less apparent than they were in the Wrigley case." "The FDA's expressions of intent to regulate calorie statements similar to those at issue in this case have simply been too vague and tentative for the court to conclude, as it did in the Wrigley case, that it was prudent not to interfere with an active and ongoing regulatory process," she added. Mars had not challenged a third prong of Gustavson's complaint, which accuses Mars of failing to identify the ingredient "polyglycerol polyricinoleic acid" by its common name. MYFOOTPATH LLC: Faces "LeBlanc" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca LeBlanc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. myFootpath, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-02994-LB (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew Michael Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Small Leagues Profit Massively, Atty. Argues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that as student athletes' class-action antitrust trial against the NCAA headed into its third week on June 23, 2014, plaintiffs' attorney Seth Rosenthal argued that even smaller college conferences are profiting massively from student athletes and pouring that money into ever more extravagant programs. "It's fair to say there's been an arms race in college sports," Rosenthal said while questioning Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky. Banowsky said he wasn't sure what an "arms race" meant, but said he generally agreed that, "there hasn't been discipline with the resources." Conference USA is a mid-level conference of 16 Southern schools, including Rice University, Louisiana Tech, Tulane, Old Dominion, Marshall and East Carolina University. Banowsky said his conference has done "a better job" of keeping expenditures in line than others, but he'd like to see revenue from athletics directed toward other university programs. "We've see this growth in expenses," Banowsky said. "As the revenues flow in, instead of capturing those to give to the library it's just plowed back in to the athletic endeavors." A lot of this revenue growth stems from lucrative television broadcast contracts. Even the smaller Conference USA has seen an $84 million revenue boost from two 6-year agreements with FOX and CBS Sports TV. "The size of the pie is enormous now for revenue for college athletics isn't it?" Rosenthal asked. "You agree the athletes are at least in part responsible for this increase in revenue that CUSA has enjoyed. Without them there would be no product." "There is more revenue flowing into the system than there has been ever, and there is significant growth in media revenues," Banowsky said, adding that without the student athletes, there would be nothing to televise. Still, Banowsky said, most athletic departments in Division One schools around the country make no profit, and only a handful are self-supporting. Led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, college athletes are suing the NCAA for the right to a share in the television broadcast revenue for their names, images and likenesses. NCAA attorney Kelly Klaus asked Banowsky if schools would raise student fees to cover the cost of paying student athletes. "They might try, but what I'm hearing is funding is very tight," Banowsky said. "State funding is tight. The ability to continue to raise student service fees for athletics is -- something no president wants to travel that path. You've got students graduating in debt and you're asking them to take on more for an athletic fee. I think that would be very difficult for a university president to undertake." Klaus tried to show that if schools were forced to negotiate licensing agreements with college athletes, schools with less money will have no chance at competing against the bigger programs with more money. "What will be the effect of ability of Rice and other members to compete for prospective student athletes in the event that other schools were negotiating group licenses and paying significant compensation in those sports?" Klaus asked. "I doubt Rice would do that. But if other schools out of state were able to provide compensation above education costs, then I'm certain it will influence decision-making of the student athletes that Rice was recruiting," Banowsky replied. He continued: "If you concentrated all the best players in schools with the highest resources, over time it would have a negative competitive effect. The teams with the best players would win more consistently then they do now." During Rosenthal's cross-examination, Banowsky said he would support some kind of compensation held in trust that student athletes can get after graduation, but that it must not be any more than the cost of attending school. Rosenthal pushed him on that point. "There's so much money in the system right now that you believe you can set up a trust fund without undermining the concept of amateurism," Rosenthal said. "I'm an advocate for incentivizing athletes to graduate," Banowsky said, "So long as it stays within the collegiate model and the fund doesn't exceed the cost of their education." Dr. Rascher Testifies on Underreport Revenues In an earlier report, Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, said that, a sports economist testified in the antitrust class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association that colleges underreport revenue. Dr. Daniel Rascher helped close out the first week of the closely watched federal trial in June before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. Former UCLA basketball player Edward O'Bannon is the lead plaintiff in the case, which accuses the NCAA of forcing thousands of student athletes to sign away rights to their images, while cheating them out of their share of television broadcast dollars. Pointing to the University of Texas, Rascher said the school generates $109 million every year from its football program but has just $27 million in expenses. "What you learn from this is the net surplus is very large," said Rascher, a professor of sports economics at the University of San Francisco. The 69 Bowl Championship Series, or BCS, schools net $1.3 billion in revenue from football alone last year, he added. Meanwhile "NHL profits are down around $7 million per team," Rascher said. "The profitability is much higher than these professional NHL clubs." He also noted other ways that athletic departments boost a university's profits. A successful college football or men's basketball team, for example, can foster a fanaticism that drives up application numbers, brings in more tuition dollars, and encourages larger alumni donations. "It's often said the athletic department is the front porch of the university," Rascher said. Then there are the profits from concessions, merchandise, sports camps and parking, which Rascher said schools count differently. A team jersey purchased at a campus bookstore, for example, would not be credited to the athletic department, even though the athletic department technically generates that revenue, he noted. "It looks like on paper sometimes that those athletic departments are losing money," Rascher said. "It can be millions of dollars a year, yet they don't show up on financial statements of the athletic department. Instead of 10 percent of schools making money from athletics, which is a phrase the NCAA likes to use, only 10 percent of schools are losing money from athletics." Rascher also refuted the argument at the forefront of testimony from former CBS executive Neal Pilson that fans watch college sports primarily to root for the schools, not the players. "There's a belief out there that fans just root for their alma maters," Rascher said. "I've looked at a couple of different measures of demand. One of them being attendance, another ratings; the idea being the athletes are a major part of what makes a team play well. If fans were just rooting for laundry as Jerry Seinfeld said, the quality of the team shouldn't matter that much." But, he added, "in college football and basketball, when a team wins, it has a bigger impact on demand, and when a team loses it drives demand down -- even more than the NFL." "Fans care more about the winning and losing when they make the decision in watching a college football game than with the NFL," he continued. The trial got heated with the cross-examination of Rascher by NCAA attorney Rohit Singla with Munger, Tolles and Olson. One of Singla's tactics was to try and have Rascher say that bigger schools with more broadcast revenue will be able to pay athletes more than schools with less revenue, therefore giving them the advantage of acquiring the most skilled athletes. Singla also attacked Rascher's testimony that schools are underreporting athletic-department revenues. Several times, the court reporter had to interrupt Singla's cross-examination to remind men not to talk over each other. Singla continued to fire off questions, trying to rattle Rascher. "You have no idea what volume you think these revenues that are being mis-accounted for represent? You have no idea how much it is? You have no idea what the volume represents at the average school, do you?" he asked. Singla also asked Rascher whether he had ever seen an athlete paid royalties from broadcast earnings, aside from special Tiger Woods appearances and the Roger Federer v. Rafael Nadal tennis matches. "You have never seen royalties paid to any athlete in any sport from broadcast revenues, have you?" "Not that I can think of," Rascher answered. Then Singla brought up Tonya Harding. "Do you remember the violent incident between Harding and Nancy Kerrigan where Kerrigan was attacked?" Rascher said he barely remembered. "The competition between the two of them was one of the most highly watched," Singla said. Rascher still could not recall a whole lot about the Harding and Kerrigan sports rivalry. "You wouldn't say that because a lot of people tuned in to watch these two in an ice-skating competition means it's OK to violently attack someone," Singla said, to which Rascher replied, "That has nothing to do with amateurism." Former CBS Exec Testifies Against Class Action In a separate report, Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a former CBS executive testified that the popularity of college sports will take a major hit if the athletes begin getting paid when their games are televised. "I have a substantial concern that it would change the fabric of the sport," said Neal Pilson, who was president of CBS Sports for 12 years and is now a sports television consultant with his own company. He was testifying before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken at the federal trial of an antitrust class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Former UCLA basketball player Edward O'Bannon is the lead plaintiff in the case, which accuses the NCAA of forcing thousands of student athletes to sign away rights to their images, while cheating them out of their share of television broadcast dollars. Munger, Tolles & Olson attorney Kelly Klaus represents the NCAA. Pilson said the public views college athletes differently from the pros -- perceiving them as students and amateurs who play for the love of the game. "I think viewers appreciate and enjoy the concept that college football players are playing because they enjoy playing college football," he said. "They volunteer to play it, they compete, they risk injury, they are relatively young and they are amateurs. I am not naive that the public isn't aware of the attention some players get, but the public differentiates college sports over professional sports for reasons that aren't true for professional sports. There is an identification with a college or university, and the fact that the players move through the college system. Most only play for one or two years. The loyalty is not to the players -- it is to the sport and the institution." If schools rush to pay for the best athletes, college athletics would most certainly become more money driven, Pilson said. "I'm concerned that the recruiting aspect of getting young high school players to play at certain colleges could be very distressing," he continued. "If there were no rules, you would have a land rush of agents and big money chasing high school juniors and seniors to get them to play for certain schools. And to get the best players you have to get the best coaches. Salaries for coaches would be driven up. A large number of casual fans around the country would be turned off by the land rush that would almost be required if this were to take place. I think it's a negative and I think it will happen." The words "name, image and likeness," or NIL, have been used in the broadcast industry for a long time, but the concept of the rights to player's names, images and likenesses is new, Pilson added. "There's a difference between NIL and 'NIL rights,'" he said. "While the industry is well aware of NIL, the discussion of whether those are NIL 'rights' is a relatively recent phenomena." In all his years negotiating deals to broadcast sporting events, "I've never been a part of a negotiation where there was a discussion of the grant, transfer or license of NIL rights," Pilson added. Student athletes would no longer be considered amateurs if they are able to share in television broadcast revenues, Pilson testified. Noting that he had been watching the U.S. Open that morning, Pilson said a young golfer who was identified as an amateur certainly would not have been compensated for having had his name and likeness shown on television. Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Isaacson hammered away at Pilson in an attempt to have him concede that most people no longer see student athletes as amateurs. Isaacson presented a passage from famed University of Alabama coach Paul "Bear" Bryant's autobiography, which says, "I used to go along with the idea that football players on scholarship were 'student-athletes,' which is what the NCAA calls them. Meaning a student first, an athlete second. We were kidding ourselves, trying to make it more palatable to the academicians. We don't have to say that and we shouldn't. At the level we play the boy is an athlete first and a student second." Isaacson also pointed to a Knight Commission survey that said the majority of Americans view college sports more like professional than amateur sports. Pilson said: "Maybe I'm naive, but if we go down the road of paying players substantial sums, all will be lost, and we're just developing a cadre of hired guns that will have no link to the colleges other than showing up for the practices and games." A former NBA TV president Edwin Desser testified for the plaintiffs that, when telecasters negotiate deals to televise games, they are paying for images and likenesses of the participants, and that those images have value. "You simply cannot show sports events without the benefit of showing the players in those events," Desser said. "I still think the appearance of the players and their activities on the field or the court are things of value. And to the extent that somebody is given the legal right to capture that and disseminate it, they are getting something of value or they wouldn't be paying for it." CBS Wants Broadcast Contract Away from Public In a separate report, Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that CBS said a federal judge at the helm of the antitrust case against the National Collegiate Athletic Association must protect a broadcast contract from public disclosure. The network in June filed a motion to intervene in the class action brought by current and former student athletes against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. After a slew of recent settlements, only the antitrust claims led by former UCLA basketball player Edward O'Bannon advanced to trial. O'Bannon claims that the NCAA forced thousands of student-athletes to sign away rights to their images and cheated them out of their share of television broadcast dollars. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken will decide whether the NCAA must pay athletes for using their images and likeness in television broadcasts. CBS noted that the multimedia agreement it and Turner Broadcasting System struck with the NCAA is an exhibit in the case and should be sealed from disclosure during the three-week bench trial. "The nonpublic provisions of the Multi-Media Agreement contain competitively sensitive information, including content licensing terms and licensing rights obtained for consideration, that are highly sensitive to CBS," the network said. "CBS competes with a number of entities to obtain rights to broadcast content, and takes steps to ensure that the Multi-Media Agreement and the highly confidential information therein are not disclosed outside of a group of persons within CBS who have a business reason to know their contents." Competitors and third parties will be able to use knowledge of the redacted terms of the tournament contract -- specifically provisions containing broadcaster rights and restrictions, promotional inventory, and definitions of the terms "Broadcaster Multi- Sport Package" and "Broadcaster Platform" -- against CBS in future agreements, the network added. The NCAA is also trying to keep the contract under wraps, but CBS argued that its interests are different and "NCAA will not 'undoubtedly' make all of CBS' arguments." "CBS operates in a different market than does the NCAA. The nature of CBS' business means it must take into account the potential effects of disclosure of confidential information in a manner completely separate and apart from the NCAA," the network's motion states. "CBS must consider different types of potential business partners and competitors than the NCAA. This unique knowledge and perspective on CBS' own competitive concerns brings new elements to the proceeding that warrants intervention." NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Worried About Bidding War for Athletes ----------------------------------------------------------- Paying college players from broadcast revenue would start a bidding war among school recruiters and shift the focus of intercollegiate athletics away from education, the Southeastern Conference's associate commissioner Greg Sankey testified on June 24, 2014, in the NCAA antitrust trial, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service. Sankey said he could imagine all kinds of scenarios where school recruiters and "overzealous fans" or boosters could make promises of cash payments and other benefits to prospective players to influence their college choice. "What we would have done is introduce the compensation discussion right into recruiting. The education piece of that discussion in recruiting would be minimized. A bidding war ensues quite quickly. That's not the focus of what we do now," Sankey said. In a landmark antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, a class of student athletes led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon claims they should be allowed to share in the television broadcast revenue for their names, images and likenesses. On June 24, 2014, NCAA lawyers argued that a change in the rule to allow student athletes to profit from name, image and likeness use by networks would open the door to third parties, such as boosters, to make promises to recruits that would distract them from the real purpose of college. Sankey said: "I don't assume that whatever promises or payments being suggested would be directly attached to name, image and likeness," but "it shifts from a broader consideration of what university to attend to one that becomes more economically based." He added: "I'm concerned about how they understand exactly what they would be asked to do relative to this name, image and likeness idea. Who is going to be advising them?" NCAA attorneys have insisted that paying players will make Division One sports less competitive, as schools with more money to pump into bigger programs will snap up the best players, giving schools with smaller programs less of a chance at winning. Plaintiffs' attorney Sathya Gosselin, with Hausfeld LLP, pointed out on cross-examination that schools already use financially driven incentives to influence college recruits, and that schools in big conferences already dominate on the field. "You agree there is significant disparity in competition," Gosselin said. "No," Sankey replied. "Thirty-two conferences have automatic qualification to tournaments. We've had success at the competitive level, but other people have access points." "The SEC [Southeastern Conference] does not dominate competition on the field?" Gosselin asked. "No. We're successful competitively. I don't know what dominate is meant to mean. Others are successful as well. We've won some championships. There have been championships we've not won as well," Sankey said. Gosselin made sure that U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken was aware of the profitability of a conference like Southeastern, pointing out that it made $314 million last year, double its revenue in 2008. Another recurring NCAA argument is the presumed waning of fan interest in college sports if players are paid, as fans will no longer consider those players to be amateurs. As the last witness of the day, the NCAA brought in John Dennis, whose survey, "Public Opinion About Paying Student-Athletes," found 69 percent of respondents were opposed to paying student athletes, and would watch and attend fewer college football and men's basketball games if students were paid. "The public believes that paying student athletes would have a negative impact on the balance of competition in schools," Dennis said. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 8th Cir. Revives Claims of Secret Salary Cap --------------------------------------------------------------- The 8th Circuit revived claims that owners of professional football teams violated a labor contract by colluding to set a secret cap on player salaries in 2010, reports Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service. Relations between the National Football League and its players had been governed for almost two decades by a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (SSA) that expired in 2010. In the final year of the agreement, the 2010 season, the SSA imposed no salary cap, and many players expected a marked increase in player salaries. This increase never occurred, however, and players began to suspect that NFL team owners were colluding to avoid bidding wars over free agents. The parties agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement in July 2011, after an 18-week lockout that threatened the year's season. But once the new agreement was in place, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and several NFL owners made public statements about an unofficial 2010 salary cap, which players interpreted as an acknowledgement of a secret salary cap in violation of the SSA. Players then sought to reopen a 1993 case filed by now-deceased defensive end Reggie White, which was one of the legal actions that pressured the league into signing the SSA. A federal judge in Minneapolis shot them down, but the 8th Circuit ruled on June 20, 2014, that the players cannot treat the SSA as a class settlement that can be revisited. "Without the conceit that the SSA is a bargained-for result of the White litigation, the rationale for treating it as a class settlement begins to fall apart. When a defendant breaches a class settlement, he vitiates the consideration received by the plaintiffs in exchange for the forfeiture of their legal rights," Judge Roger Wollman wrote for the three-judge panel. "But when a defendant breaches an independent contract signed with members of the class, the legal rights of the class at issue in the lawsuit are not implicated. The mere fact that a class has suffered a harm, seventeen years after they were certified for purposes of unrelated litigation, does not mean that they may seek redress for that harm as a class." Rule 60(b), which allows a court to set aside a final judgment if it was obtained by misrepresentation, may still offer the players relief, the St. Louis-based court ruled. "Our holding should not be read as in any way expressing a view on the merits of the association's Rule 60(b) motion," Wollman wrote. "'Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional of cases,' and the association bears a heavy burden in attempting to convince the District Court that the dismissal was fraudulently procured. We hold only that the association should be given the opportunity to meet this burden." NATIONAL PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Over Disabilities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Amelio, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. National Penn Bank, Case No. 5:14-cv-04005- EGS (E.D. Pa., June 30, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD 115 Federal Plaza, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com NATIONAL RIFLE: Sued in Ohio Over Violation of Telephone Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Bryan Reo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Rifle Association of America, Case No. 1:14- cv-01444 (N.D. Ohio, June 30, 2014) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. NEVADA: Plaintiff in Health Insurance Class Action Dies ------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Robison, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that time ran out for Linda Rolain. The Las Vegas woman died on June 30, less than two weeks after her family went public with details about Nevada Health Link insurance exchange enrollment troubles that kept her from treatment in January for an aggressive brain tumor. Mrs. Rolain was one of about 150 Nevadans suing Nevada Health Link contractor Xerox for enrollment mix-ups that left them without the health insurance they paid for. Mrs. Rolain is the first to die of complications from an illness said to have gone untreated for lack of coverage. But observers close to her case say she may not be the last. "We are worried that this is the first of many Nevadans who have life-threatening issues that may end up in such tragic circumstances. We urge all Nevadans to verify that their insurance is active and in place in light of the many problems that hundreds, if not thousands, of Nevadans have gone through," Mrs. Rolain's law firm, Callister, Immerman and Associates, said in a statement. Local insurance broker Pat Casale, who in May began to help Mrs. Rolain with her enrollment issues, said he wouldn't be surprised if there were at least another 100 Nevadans facing both coverage problems and "urgent and emergent" health care needs. "I know a few that I have right now (are) in serious need of care -- people who have actually paid premiums and have not received care," Mr. Casale said. Mrs. Rolain's husband, Robert, said the couple began trying to sign up in November, well ahead of the Dec. 15 deadline for January coverage. After wrestling with repeated sign-up problems, the Rolains bought a plan that took effect in March. But they said Xerox staffers miscommunicated the policy's effective date, so they didn't know until May that they had coverage. Linda Rolain was first diagnosed with a brain tumor in early 2014, after a seizure in late 2013. Robert Rolain said in a June 19 news conference at the downtown Las Vegas offices of Callister, Immerman and Associates that his wife's care was delayed for months because of their insurance troubles. Robert Rolain alleges his wife's tumor went from treatable in winter to fatal in spring as the couple fought for coverage. Linda Rolain was admitted to hospice care in early June. A Xerox spokesman said in a statement that the company would not "be able to comment on this tragic development." Mr. Casale blamed the coverage mishap on Xerox's "ineptitude" and "inability to get paperwork and to process things through to" the Rolains' insurer, Nevada Health CO-OP. "This poor lady was told in January that she needed immediate attention," Mr. Casale said. "Her doctor said if she had begun treatment in March, he might been able to give her quality of care, and she might have lived longer. She had no chance because of the delay. "Ms. Rolain should have had coverage in January. (The Rolains) did everything they could to facilitate the acquisition of a health plan," Mr. Casale added. "She suffered and she died all because of the negligence of a vendor who should not even be in the industry." The Silver State Health Insurance Exchange signed a $72 million contract with Xerox in 2012 to build Nevada Health Link. But software glitches kept legions of consumers from enrolling in plans when the health link opened on Oct. 1. The exchange enrolled just a third of the 118,000 sign-ups it targeted in its first year. The exchange's board decided in May to replace Xerox as the health link's contractor. The exchange will borrow federal eligibility and enrollment functions in November while it looks for a permanent replacement system for 2015's enrollment session. Callister, Immerman and Associates filed its class action lawsuit on April 1 after Las Vegan Larry Basich ran up $407,000 in uncovered medical bills despite paying several months' worth of premiums through Nevada Health Link. Attorney Matthew Callister said on June 19 that he would seek faster legal action for gravely ill patients, including Linda Rolain. "Some of our clients are so ill that if their needs are not addressed now, it is a matter of life and death," Mr. Callister said. NEVADA YELLOW: Cab Drivers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled in a 4-3 decision that a district court erred in holding that the Minimum Wage Amendment did not entirely replace the existing statutory minimum wage scheme, which exempts taxicab drivers from its minimum wage provisions. Christopher Thomas and Christopher Craig brought an action in district court against Nevada Yellow Cab Corporation; Nevada Checker Cab Corporation; and Nevada Star Cab Corporation. They claimed damages for unpaid wages pursuant to Article 15, Section 16 of the Nevada Constitution, a constitutional amendment that revised Nevada's then-statutory minimum wage scheme, formerly known as the Minimum Wage Amendment. Justices Michael Cherry, Kristina Pickering, James Hardesty and Michael Douglas voted in the majority, with Cherry authoring the opinion. Justices Ron Parraguirre, Mark Gibbons and Nancy Saitta dissented, with Justice Parraguirre authoring a dissenting opinion. The district court held that the Minimum Wage Amendment did not entirely replace the existing statutory minimum wage scheme under NRS 608.250, which in subsection 2 excepts taxicab drivers from its minimum wage provisions. "We hold that the district court erred because the text of the Minimum Wage Amendment, by clearly setting out some exceptions to the minimum wage law and not others, supplants the exceptions listed in NRS 608.250(2)," the June 26 opinion states. "Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal order and remand for further proceedings on appellants' minimum wage claims." Messrs. Thomas and Craig brought a class action against the taxicab companies, arguing they and similarly situated taxicab drivers had not been paid pursuant to constitutional minimum wage requirements during the course of their employment. The complaint was based on the Minimum Wage Amendment, which was proposed by initiative petition and approved and ratified by the voters in 2004 and 2006, and which raised the state minimum wage to a rate higher than the minimum imposed in Nevada by the Labor Commissioner. The taxicab companies moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Minimum Wage Amendment did not eliminate the statutory exception for taxicab drivers under NRS 608.250(2)(e). Following a hearing, the district court concluded that the Minimum Wage Amendment did not repeal NRS 608.250 and that the statutory exceptions could be harmonized with the constitutional amendment. Accordingly, the district court ruled that NRS 608.250(2)(e) expressly excludes taxicab drivers from Nevada's minimum wage statutes and granted the taxicab companies' motion to dismiss the complaint. Messrs. Thomas and Craig then appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada. "The text of the Minimum Wage Amendment, by enumerating specific exceptions that do not include taxicab drivers, supersedes and supplants the taxicab driver exception set out in NRS 608.250(2)," the majority opinion states. "We accordingly reverse the district court's dismissal order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." In his dissent, Justice Parraguirre stated that he would affirm the district court's order dismissing Thomas' complaint because the Amendment was only intended to increase the minimum wage amount. "We presume that a statute is constitutional, and a party who challenges the constitutionality of a statute must clearly show its invalidity," the dissenting opinion states. "We must presume that implied repeal was not intended and the exemptions set forth in NRS 608.250(2) are constitutional," the dissenting opinion states. "Because the Amendment was neither intended nor understood to do more than raises the minimum wage amount, I would conclude that these presumptions have not been rebutted and would affirm the district court's order of dismissal." Nevada Supreme Court case number: 61681 NEW YORK TIMES: Accused of Selling Subscription Lists to Scammers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Times, Dow Jones and Forbes sold their subscription lists to scammers who then overcharged customers for renewals or new orders, and sometimes kept the money without providing subscriptions at all, a class action claims in New York Federal Court, according to Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff I. Stephen Rabin sued the media companies on June 23, 2014, on behalf of people "who have been induced to subscribe, or renew subscriptions, to The New York Times, Barron's The Wall Street Journal, or Forbes Magazine (collectively the 'Publications') by Circulation Billing Services and various related entities (collectively, 'CBS' or the 'entities') which obtained defendants' subscription lists, and other information concerning plaintiff and the class members without their consent or knowledge." The complaint continues: "The entities sent official looking 'Notices of Renewal' or 'Notices of New Order' to subscribers of the Publications, collected the fees far in excess of the subscription price, and then, upon information and belief, paid the subscription price to the publisher of the Publications and kept the excess for themselves, or kept the entire subscription amount for themselves and did not provide the subscription paid for. Defendants were aware of the entities falsely purporting to act on their behalf, but were satisfied that the entities were maintaining their subscription base at no cost to them, to that, with one exception, they failed to notify their subscribers of the scam." The one exception is Barron's, which notified its subscribers of the scam on Nov. 11, 2013, "years after the scam had been well known to Barron's," the complaint states. Rabin claims that the defendants "have profited from selling their subscription list and other information, and continue to sell their subscription lists and other information to the same sources that perpetrated or caused the scam to occur without notifying their subscribers. Defendants have knowingly permitted the names of their publications to be used by fraudsters to scam their subscribers so they could profit from maintaining their subscriber lists inexpensively and profit from the sale of their subscription lists and other information." Rabin seeks class certification and damages for fraud and deceit, negligence, and business law violations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond A. Bragar, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212)486-0462 E-mail: bragar@bespc.com The case is I. Stephen Rabin v. The New York Times Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-04498, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Efraim Schwartz and Blimie Schwartz, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers v. NorthStar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04089 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are not represented by any law firm. NU-WAY TRANSPORTATION: "Loshbough" Suit Moved to C.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Loshbough v. NU-WAY Transportation Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01912, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria). The Illinois Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01262-MMM-JEH to the proceeding. The case alleges job discrimination. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq. Matthew J. Herman, Esq. Peter Lawrence Currie, Esq. Robert M. Foote, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 232-4480 Facsimile: (630) 232-7452 E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com mjh@fmcolaw.com plc@fmcolaw.com rmf@fmcolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael R. Lied, Esq. HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PC One Technology Plaza 211 Fulton St., Suite 600 Peoria, IL 61602-1350 Telephone: (309) 672-1483 Facsimile: (309) 672-1568 E-mail: mrl@h2law.com - and - Emily Elizabeth Bennett, Esq. HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS, PLLC 200 S. Michigan Ave., #1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 456-3422 E-mail: ebennett@howardandhoward.com QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Meeting Scheduled to Discuss Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allyson Horn, writing for ABC News, reports that a public meeting was set to be held on July 2 on Palm Island, in north Queensland, to discuss a class action launched against the State of Queensland and the Commissioner of Police. The death of resident Cameron Doomadgee in a police cell in 2004 sparked riots on the island and the police station and courthouse were burnt down. Three residents, Lex, Agnes and Cecilia Wotton, have now launched a class action in the Federal Court, alleging the police response and investigation into the death were deficient. The Wottons allege police discriminated against them on the basis of their race, including allowing officers with a conflict of interest to take part in the investigation into the death. Lawyer Stewart Levitt says the meeting will give Palm Islanders a chance to voice their thoughts on the court action. "All the people of Palm Island who were residents there in November 2004, who were 93 per cent Indigenous, are defined as being members of a group," Mr. Levitt said. "It's effectively an opportunity for them to find out about the case, to find out what the case can give to them and to choose whether they want to be a part of it or not. "We're essentially alleging that the police failed to discharge not only their constitutional responsibilities but their statutory responsibilities in failing to protect the people of Palm Island as equal citizens." RADIOSHACK CORP: State Court Sustains Demurrer in "Brookler" ------------------------------------------------------------ The Los Angeles Superior Court again sustained Radioshack Corporation's demurrer without leave to amend in a labor suit filed by Morry Brookler, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014. In April 2004, plaintiff Morry Brookler filed a putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming that the company violated California's wage and hour laws relating to meal and rest periods. The meal period claim was originally certified as a class action in February 2006. The company filed a Motion for Decertification in August 2007 which was denied. After a favorable decision by the California Court of Appeals in a similar case, Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, the company filed a Second Motion for Decertification which was granted in October 2008. The plaintiff appealed this ruling and in August 2010, the California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decertification order. In September 2010, the company filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, which granted review and placed the case on hold pending a decision in the Brinker case. In April 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Brinker and in June 2012, remanded the company's case to the California Court of Appeals with instructions to vacate its prior order and reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Brinker. In December 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decertification of the meal period class. In June 2013, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint to assert rest and meal period as well as off-the-clock and Private Attorneys General Act claims and to add an additional class representative. In July 2013 the trial court granted the Motion to Amend and the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. In August 2013 the company removed the case to federal court. In September 2013 the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case back to state court, which was granted in October 2013. In November 2013 the company filed a demurrer in state court to all causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint, which was granted without leave to amend in January 2014. On February 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the Court of Appeals seeking immediate relief from the trial court's order. On February 11, 2014, the Court of Appeals notified the trial court and parties of its intent to issue a peremptory Writ of Mandate compelling the trial court to vacate its order granting the demurrer and issue a new order denying the demurrer. On February 21, 2014, the trial court reversed its prior decision and denied the company's demurrer. On February 26, 2014, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court had not followed proper procedure and ordered it to vacate its February 21 order to allow the company an opportunity to oppose the Appellate Court's notice. In April 2014, after further briefing by the parties, the trial court again sustained the company's demurrer without leave to amend. It is expected that plaintiffs will appeal the trial court's order. RADIOSHACK CORP: Court Orders Additional Proof in "Ordonez" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order requiring Radioshack Corp. to produce additional evidence in a suit alleging it violated California's wage and hour laws, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014. In May 2010, the company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the company violated California's wage and hour laws by not providing required meal periods and rest breaks, failed to pay for all time worked, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to pay minimum wage and failed to maintain required records. In September 2010, the company removed the case to the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California. In July 2012, plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. In January 2013, the court denied, without prejudice, the Motion for Class Certification as to all claims. In February 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the court's denial of class certification only with regard to the rest period claim. In April 2013, the court ordered that plaintiff could conduct limited additional discovery and file a renewed Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff filed the renewed motion in July 2013. A hearing on the motion was held in February 2014, at which time the court issued a tentative ruling granting plaintiff's motion as to the rest period claim. However, following oral argument, the court issued an order requiring the parties to submit supplemental evidence and briefs. In March 2014, the court issued another order requiring the company to produce additional evidence by June 9, 2014. RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Order on Motion for Judgment in FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The motion by Radioshack Corp. for Judgment on Pleadings in a lawsuit filed against it over alleged Fair Labor Standards Act violation has been fully briefed and Radioshack is now awaiting a decision, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2014. In April 2012, the company was named as a defendant in a putative nationwide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and putative statewide class actions under New York and Ohio state laws in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that the company's use of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime for certain of the company's retail store managers violates federal and state laws because the store managers receive bonuses in addition to their fixed salaries. In June 2012, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. In March 2013, the court issued an opinion granting the company's motion in part, finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to seek overtime based upon the company's use of the "fluctuating workweek" method prior to April 5, 2011, the date of a U.S. Department of Labor Final Rule ("Final Rule") addressing, among other things, proposed changes to the federal "fluctuating workweek" regulation finding that, based upon statements in the Final Rule, bonus payments were now incompatible with the "fluctuating workweek" method. The court also dismissed one of the named plaintiffs. Following the court's decision, the company filed a Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay the Action, which the court granted in August 2013. Shortly thereafter the company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was granted. In April 2013, plaintiffs in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey filed similar lawsuits alleging violations of their respective state laws. In June 2013, the company filed Motions to Dismiss in the New York and New Jersey cases. In November 2013, the court in the New York case granted the company's Motion to Dismiss. In December 2013, the plaintiff in the New York case filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2014, the plaintiff in the New Jersey case voluntarily dismissed the case and filed an opt in notice in the Ohio case. The opening briefs in the New York and Ohio appeals were filed in March and April of 2014, respectively. In September 2013, the court in the Pennsylvania case ordered the parties to file briefs addressing whether the company's use of the "fluctuating workweek" method violates Pennsylvania law. The plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the company filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. These motions have been fully briefed and the company is awaiting a decision by the court. SAMSUNG: Settles DRAM Price-Fixing Class Action for $310-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Samsung, Toshiba and 10 other manufacturers of Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) have reached a combined $310.72 million class action lawsuit settlement over claims they conspired to fix the price of DRAM data storage chips found in computers and other digital devices. If you purchased a digital device from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2002, you may be eligible to claim at least $10 or more from the DRAM class action settlement. No proof of purchase necessary. The more devices purchased, the more money you can claim. Eligible products include: Computers (laptops and desktops) Servers Graphics cards Video game consoles MP3 players Printers PDA's DVD players Digital Video Recorders Point of Sale Systems Other digital devices The deadline to file a claim is August 1, 2014. More information about how to file a claim for the DRAM class action settlement can be found at tpcl.as/DRAMinfo. Case Summary The DRAM price-fixing settlement resolves multiple class action lawsuits accusing manufacturers of conspiring to fix and raise the prices of DRAM, a form of fast and inexpensive data storage essential to the operation of computers and other digital devices. Plaintiffs accused Toshiba, Samsung, Hitachi, NEC and multiple defendants of entering into price-fixing agreements that resulted in consumers and businesses overpaying for devices containing DRAM from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002. The defendants deny the allegations but agreed to pay a combined $310,720,000 to resolve the litigation. It's estimated that $200 million will be paid to consumers who file a valid claim by the August 1, 2014 deadline. The case is In re: DRAM Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Potential Award Consumers and entities that purchased a digital device containing DRAM from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002 can file a claim to receive at least $10 or more from the DRAM class action settlement. The more devices purchased the more money you can claim. No proof of purchase is necessary, but you may be asked to supply documentation if the Claims Administrator requests it. Deadline The deadline to file a claim is 8/1/2014. File a Claim Claim filing instructions can be found at tpcl.as/DRAMinfo SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Removed "Aycock" Class Suit to Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Aycock, et al. v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation, et al., Case No. CV2014-006892, 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-01483-DLR to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barry Lance Entrekin, Esq. ENTREKIN LAW FIRM 1 E Camelback Rd., Suite 710 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 954-1123 Facsimile: (480) 615-9869 E-mail: lance@entrekinlaw.com - and - Geoffrey Mark Trachtenberg, Esq. LEVENBAUM TRACHTENBERG PLC 362 N 3rd Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003-1504 Telephone: (602) 271-0183 Facsimile: (602) 271-4018 E-mail: gt@ltinjurylaw.com Defendants Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation and John C. Lincoln Health Network are represented by: Alicyn Marie Freeman, Esq. James R. Broening, Esq. Jathan Paul McLaughlin, Esq. Robert Thomas Aquinas Sullivan, Esq. BROENING OBERG WOODS & WILSON PC PO Box 20527 Phoenix, AZ 85036 Telephone: (602) 271-7700 Facsimile: (602) 258-7785 E-mail: amf@bowwlaw.com jrb@bowwlaw.com jpm@bowwlaw.com rts@bowwlaw.com Defendant Dignity Health is represented by: Cameron Charles Artigue, Esq. GAMMAGE & BURNHAM PLLC 2 N Central Ave., 18th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 256-4418 E-mail: cartigue@gblaw.com SPRINGFIELD, MA: Faces Class Action Over Public Day Programs ------------------------------------------------------------ Carolyn Robbins, writing for MassLive.com, reports that a parent of a student with mental health needs has filed a federal class against suit against the city of Springfield and the city's school system, claiming the student is being "warehoused in a segregated Springfield school without educational opportunities or therapeutic supports." The suit was filed on June 27 in U.S. District Court by a parent of a 15-year-old student at the Public Day School and the Parent/Professional Advocacy League (PPAL), a statewide grassroots family organization that advocates for improved access to services for children with mental health needs and their families. The suit alleges that the Public Day School, which operates an elementary, middle and high school in three city locations, focuses "on behavior control using drastic methods including dangerous physical restraints, forced isolation in padded rooms and repeated arrests and suspensions for minor offenses." The suit said, that in 2013-2014, there were 233 students at the Public Day School, where the drop-out rate exceeds 41 percent. Superintendent of Public Schools Daniel J. Warwick called the complaint "outrageous." "These are meritless allegations that are jam-packed with falsehoods," he said. "I cannot wait for the opportunities to not only defend our public day programming but also to highlight the significant gains which have been realized by the students enrolled in these programs." Mr. Warwick said that the goal of the public day programs is to provide alternative pathways for students with disabilities to be successful within the public school setting. He pointed to recent public day school gains in graduation and attendance rates and academic achievement. He also said that the district's public day programs, which are fully approved by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, have been lauded by school districts throughout the state as a model of excellence. Mr. Warwick said the allegations serve as a tremendous disservice to students with disabilities and their families as it aims to reduce the quality and intensity of the services available to students with disabilities, in turn limiting their pathways to success. "We will not let this or other similar actions by outsiders distract us from providing quality education and services to all of the children of the citizens of Springfield," he said. Robert Fleischner, an attorney with the Center for Public Representation, a public interest law firm in Northampton, representing the plaintiffs, said the case claims that students at the school are being segregated in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act which requires public systems provide services in integrated settings. The nature of the segregation further denies them equal educational opportunity, Mr. Fleischner. Also representing the plaintiffs are The Judge David H. Bazelon Center for Mental Health, in Washington-DC., and Bingham McCutchen, a Boston law firm. Students typically assigned to the Public Day Schools have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactive disorder and other behavior disorders, Mr. Fleischner said. Ira Burnim, Judge Bazelon's legal director, said in a press release, said "these students can be educated successfully in Springfield's neighborhood schools with reasonable modification of school programs and appropriate school-based behavioral services." STELLAR RECOVERY: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Noel Guevarra Martinez and Denise Ortiz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Stellar Recovery Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-01489-NVW (D. Ariz., July 1, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David James McGlothlin, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2633 E Indian School Rd., Suite 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 265-3332 Facsimile: (602) 230-4482 E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com SUNRISE PROPANE: Settles Class Action Over Deadly Blast for C$23MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ CBC News reports that a proposed settlement in the class-action lawsuit related to a deadly explosion at a Toronto Sunrise Propane plant will see the company pay C$23 million to claimants, with a reserve fund of $8 million for affected residents. The explosion and fire occurred on Aug. 10, 2008, killing Sunrise employee Parminder Saini. Firefighter Bob Leek suffered a fatal heart attack while battling the massive fire that followed. "This is a good settlement. Like all settlements, it's a compromise and this is a reasonable compromise," said Harvin Pitch -- hpitch@teplitskycolson.com -- a lawyer with Teplitsky Colson, a firm involved in the suit. "It was a hard- fought contest and we fought all the way till we had a settlement in place." Aside from claimants, insurance, administrative and legal expenses would be paid through the settlement. The blast at the fuel depot at 62 Murray Rd., in the Keele Street and Wilson Avenue area, created a massive fireball that could be seen across the city and forced about 12,000 people from their Downsview neighborhood homes. The class-action lawsuit stipulated the area affected was bordered by Keele Street, Highway 401, Sheppard Avenue and Dufferin Street. The initial blast and subsequent explosions at the propane fuel site could be heard seven kilometers away. Homes, businesses and schools in the surrounding area were damaged. There are 6,500 members in the class-action suit. Under the proposed deal, some of the money will be used to settle individual claims. Some of the financial awards in the suit include: * Each resident who was displaced from their home will receive C$200 for the first day outside their home and C$50 per day thereafter. * People injured in the blast and fire will get anywhere from C$500 to C$50,000, depending on the severity of the injury. * All insurance deductibles will be paid for claimants, and uninsured property damage can be claimed as well. * Members of the class action can claim for lost employment or business during the period after the blast. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care will also be partially compensated for health-care services provided as a result of the blast. The settlement deal still has to be approved by the judge in the case. There will be town hall meetings to explain the settlement on July 15, 16 and 29, at 7:00 p.m., at Northwood Community Centre (15 Clubhouse Court). Sunrise Propane and directors Shay Ben-Moshe and Valery Belahov were found guilty of nine provincial offences in relation to the explosion. SUPERIOR ENERGY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation in Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lori A. Smith v. Superior Energy Resources, LLC, Varischetti Holdings, LP, Varischetti & Sons, Inc. and Peter Varischetti, Case No. 2:14-cv-00854-CB (W.D. Pa., June 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act's antiretaliation provision by discriminating and retaliating against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants at their locations in Pennsylvania. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an opt-in class or "collective" action under the FLSA, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, in the District Court. The Class Action is Lori A. Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Superior Energy Resources, LLC, Varischetti Holdings, LP, Varischetti & Sons, Inc., Peter Varischetti, and Does #1 through #10, Case No. 2:13-cv-00640-CB. Superior is a Pennsylvania limited liability company, servicing several key industries to support Marcellus shale development in Pennsylvania and parts of New York, Ohio, West Virginia and Maryland. Holdings is a Delaware limited partnership and the parent company of Superior. Sons is a Pennsylvania corporation and is the general partner of Holdings. Peter Varischetti is a Principal of Superior. The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2041 Herr Street Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624 Telephone: (717) 238-5707 Facsimile: (717) 233-8133 E-mail: dcummings@mwcfirm.com SUTTER HEALTH: Court Dismissed 3rd Amended "Sidibe" Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Sutter Health's motion to dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned Sidibe, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. C 12-04854 LB. In the putative class action, Plaintiffs Djeneba Sidibe, Diane Dewey, and Jerry Jankowski sued Sutter Health, a company that owns and operates hospitals and other health care service providers, alleging that Sutter's anticompetitive conduct in the health care services industry in Northern California violates federal and state antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law. The alleged anticompetitive conduct is Sutter's imposing tying arrangements that require health plans to include in their provider network, and pay supra-competitive rates for, all Inpatient Hospital Services that Sutter supplies in five tied hospital service area markets (the San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Modesto, and Santa Rosa HSAs). TREASURY WINE: Maurice Blackburn Files Shareholder Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Evans, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that legal firm Maurice Blackburn lodged documents in the Federal Court on July 2 to begin a class-action lawsuit against Treasury Wine Estates. The legal action is on behalf of more than 600 shareholders over what the firm claims was a late disclosure of heavy writedowns relating to its United States business in 2013. The lawsuit is being funded by Bentham IMF. Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan filed the class action in the Federal Court in Sydney. The documents don't specify the size of the claim, although it is expected to run into the "tens of millions". Treasury Wine said in a note to the Australian Securities Exchange that it "strongly denies any and all allegations against it and will vigorously defend the legal proceeding". The claim alleges that Treasury, which owns brands including Penfolds, Rosemount, Lindemans and Wynns, misled the market and breached its continuous disclosure obligations in relation to the financial impact of over-stocked third-party distributors in the United States. It is the second class-action lawsuit that has flowed from Treasury's surprise AUD160 million write-down and profit warning in July, 2013 which also included a now infamous destruction of up to AUD35 million worth of low-priced bottled wine that had to be crushed by steamrollers. Ms. Gilsenan said the action was being brought on behalf of Treasury shareholders "who lost millions of dollars when the company revealed the full extent of the problem in July last year". She said the documents didn't specify a figure for the size of the claim but "we expect and anticipate it would be in the tens of millions". Ms. Gilsenan said the case would present evidence that Treasury knew, or should have known by August 17, 2012, that large writedowns were inevitable and that the market should have been alerted far earlier than it was. "It wasn't informed until July, 2013, so shareholders unfairly paid an inflated price for the stock in the meantime," she said. A separate class action against Treasury has been pursued by Melbourne lawyer Mark Elliott in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The class-action proceedings are an unwelcome distraction for Treasury, which received a buyout proposal from United States private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Robert. The bid, which was made public in May, values it at AUD3.1 billion. Treasury said in its announcement to the ASX that the Federal Court documents lodged by Maurice Blackburn name the applicant as Brian Jones, who bought 1000 shares in Treasury on September 21, 2012 at an average price of AUD4.76 per share. Mr. Jones brings the claim on his own behalf and on behalf of other people who have entered into the litigation funding agreement with Bentham IMF. The claim alleges contraventions of continuous disclosure obligations and alleges misleading and deceptive conduct. ULTA SALON: Still Faces Labor Litigation in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. continues to face an employment lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's June 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3, 2014. On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain unnamed defendants in state court in Los Angeles County, California. On April 12, 2012, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On August 8, 2013, the plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class and the Company opposed the plaintiff's request and is waiting for the court to issue a decision. The plaintiff and members of the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of the California labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. UNITED SERVICES: Removed "Dye" Insurance Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Dye v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No. 14-12547 CA 40, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in 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-22429-DPG to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq. Tamra Carsten Givens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN Complex Litigation Group 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com tgivens@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Francis Augustine Zacherl, III, Esq. Arturo Carlos Martinez, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP Miami Center, Suite 1500 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 347-7305 Facsimile: (305) 347-7705 E-mail: fzacherl@shutts.com arturomartinez@Shutts.com UNITED STATES: N.Y. Court Certifies Class Action v. Census Bureau ----------------------------------------------------------------- On the eve of the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Civil Right Act of 1964, a class action lawsuit alleging the U.S. Census Bureau unlawfully screened out approximately 250,000 African- Americans from temporary jobs for the 2010 census was certified by a New York federal court, Outten & Golden LLP and co-counsel said on July 2. U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas' 61-page opinion rendered on July 1 ensures that the unprecedented lawsuit, pursued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, will go forward as a class action on behalf of African-American job applicants who were denied Census Bureau employment because of its criminal background check policy. Filed in April 2010, the lawsuit alleges that in hiring nearly a million temporary workers, most of whom went door to door seeking information from residents, the Census Bureau erected unreasonable, largely insurmountable, hurdles for applicants with arrest records -- regardless of whether the arrests were decades old, for minor charges, or led to criminal convictions. The court designated plaintiffs from Philadelphia, Detroit, and Stamford, Conn. as class representatives. The legal team for the plaintiffs, which were appointed as class counsel, includes lawyers from Outten and Golden, and the Center for Constitutional Rights; Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; Community Service Society, of New York; Indian Law Resource Center, of Helena, Mont.; LatinoJustice PRLDEF of New York; Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, of Washington, D.C.; and Public Citizen Litigation Group, of Washington, D.C. Government records show that more than 70 million people in the U.S. have been arrested, but at least 35 percent of all arrests nationwide never lead to prosecutions or convictions. National statistics also confirm that African-Americans and Latinos suffer a disproportionately high percentage of arrests as compared to Whites. Most of the job applicants covered by the class action received a form letter from the government, advising them to provide official court records of all arrests within 30 days. The lawsuit alleges that the "30-day" letter's ambiguity and failure to provide basic information such as the arrests for which documentation was requested created confusion and set up applicants for non- compliance and rejection. In July 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission advised the Census Bureau that its criminal background screening process could violate federal law. Adam Klein, of Outten & Golden LLP, said, "We look forward to a trial of this case. The evidence will show the Census Bureau excluded many people who, on a fair review of their records, met federal standards for having no relevant criminal history. It's ironic that while the Bureau promoted its desire in 2010 to better reach communities at risk of being undercounted -- particularly low-income people of color -- by hiring within those communities, it then discriminated against members of those very communities." The court also ruled that the class action cannot at this time include Latinos who were screened out as Census Bureau job applicants and included in the original complaint. If the plaintiffs are able to identify a suitable Latino class representative, the court said, they may seek to amend the lawsuit and the class certification order. More information about the case is available at www.censusdiscriminationlawsuit.com The case is "Evelyn Houser, et al., v. Penny Pritzker, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce," No. 1:10-cv-03105-FM, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. ********* 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 * * *