/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140716.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 140 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Court Compels Arbitration of DNA Kit Class Claims ACT EVENT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, "Flores" Suit Claims AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Conspiring to Fix Propane Tank Prices ARDSLEY COUNTRY: Faces "Arciola" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Class Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval ASA COLLEGE: Misrepresents Degree Programs, "Sanchez" Suit Says ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Filed Misleading Proxy Statement, Suit Claims ASTA PARKING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime CAPITAL PIZZA: Faces "Linkovich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CENTURY 21: Does Illegal Background Checks, "White" Suit Claims CHICAGO, IL: State High Court Tossed Health Insurance Requirement CITY LIFE: Faces "Barra" Suit in Nev. Over Failure to Pay OT COMCAST CORP: Race Discrimination Suit Can Proceed as Class Suit DELL INC: RI Court Tosses Negligence Count in Sales Tax Action ELAVON INC: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages EXPRESS FASHION: Faces Privacy Class Action in California FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action FORD MOTOR: Mechanic Can Sue for Further Damages in Asbestos Suit FT SUPERMARKET: Faces "Concepcion" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GEMINI MANUFACTURING: Recalls Power Chargers Due to Burn Hazard GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kluessendorf" Suit Over Ignition Switch GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Switch Defects GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Panadol Advance Bottle HURONIA REGIONAL: Ex-Residents Face Delay in Getting Case Files HYMANS SEAFOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Fuel-Economy Claims JC SEAFOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages JORDY'S TRUCK: "Pelayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime KELLOGG ROOFING: "Self" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime LABORATORY CORP: Disclosed Credit Card Expiry Dates, Suit Claims LIFEGUARD PRESS: Recalls Charging Kits Due to Fire, Shock Hazards LINGERIE FOOTBALL: Misclassifies Players to Avoid OT, Suit Says MANGOES CAFE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime MASTER CUTLERY: Recalls Neck Knives Due to Laceration Hazard MBJ CAFETERIA: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime MEDORA SNACKS: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime MONSANTO CO: Residents Can Register Dioxin Claims in Nitro Office MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Sued in C.D. California Over TCPA Violations MVM INC: Faces "Buckson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Guards Overtime NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Players Can Have Up to $5K According to Deal NEW SOUTH WALES: Defense Dept. May Face Suit Over State Mine Fire PACIFIC COAST: Faces "Welch" Shareholder Class Suit in California PASADENA CITY, CA: Suit Disputes Water Rates Set for Nonresidents PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Celecoxib Patent PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Price" Class Suit Over Merger With Avago POCAHONTAS COUNTY, VA: Residents' Appeal Over Landfill Fees Nixed RADIOSHACK CORP: Liable in Pennsylvania OT Suit, Judge Rules REAL TIME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection RIVKA ORLYN: "Felix" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action Over 2011 Floods SLOAN VALVE: Aug. 25 Hearing Set for $18MM Flushmate Settlement STAAR SURGICAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif. STAGE 3: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime STUDENT MAID: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TAMKO BUILDING: Faces Class Action Over Defective Shingles THOMAS M. COOLEY: 6th Cir. Says School Failed to Prove Malice TOTAL BUILDING: Faces "Perkins" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime UNITED BUILDING: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit in Minn. Over ERISA Violation VALEANT PHARMA: Recalls About 850,000 Tubes of Muro Eye Ointment VAPOR PASSION: Faces "Camejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime VOXX INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Escrow Mismanagement Class Action WHOLE FOODS: Removed "Rivera" Suit to S.D.N.Y. * Cost of Top 10 Most Expensive Settlements of 2013 Totals $638MM * Hanna Law Firm Sued Over Shoddy Credit-Card Collection Lawsuits ********* 23ANDME INC: Court Compels Arbitration of DNA Kit Class Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- A Terms of Service agreement that 23andMe supplies to users of its do-it-yourself DNA kit is problematic but still compels arbitration of all class claims, a federal judge found, reports Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service. Consumer-protection lawsuits against Mountain View, Calif.-based 23andMe Inc. have been flooding the courts over the past year, and U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh is presiding over the consolidated litigation in San Jose, Calif. There are also at least three pending arbitrations involving class claims about the DNA saliva test Personal Genome Service (PGS), which 23andMe sells for $99 a pop, Koh noted. Earlier this year, 23andMe filed an omnibus motion to compel arbitration of all claims. It noted that users who want to see their test results must create an online profile and agree to a Terms of Service that says "any disputes shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration." Though the plaintiffs highlighted that they gave no such consent when purchasing their tests, Koh dismissed all claims without prejudice and compelled arbitration. She did so despite finding that "23andMe's practice of obscuring terms of service until after purchase -- and for a potentially indefinite time -- is unfair, and that a better practice would be to show or require acknowledgement of such terms at the point of sale." The TOS includes language stating that disputes would fall under the "rules and auspices of the American Arbitration Association (AAA)," but Koh noted that the AAA is normally used during cases involving two corporate entities -- not consumers. "The problem is further compounded by the fact that the TOS purport to bind users who are never asked to view the TOS and click 'I ACCEPT,'" the 31-page ruling states. "For example, as noted above, the TOS purport also to bind users who merely visit 23andMe's website even if the user lacks an account." Koh also agreed with the plaintiffs that the arbitration clause in the TOS was unconscionable "because it is buried at the end of the TOS" and because they never received a copy of the agreement. "Customers who purchase the DNA kits have only a 60-minute window to cancel their orders and receive a full refund," the ruling states. "By the time those customers create accounts and register their DNA kits -- when 23andMe first requires them to acknowledge the arbitration provision -- they have already paid 23andMe, and the cancellation period may have long expired." Despite these findings, Koh said that the arbitration provision is enforceable because it was not substantively unconscionable. "It is not enough that the terms are slightly one-sided or confer more benefits on a particular party; a substantively unconscionable term must be so unreasonable and one-sided as to 'shock the conscience,'" Koh wrote. Holding arbitration in San Francisco near company headquarters also would not deprive the consumers of their "day in court," the ruling states. The Defendant is represented by: Robert P. Varian, Esq. James N. Kramer, Esq. M. Todd Scott, Esq. Alexander K. Talarides, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 E-mail: rvarian@orrick.com jkramer@orrick.com tscott@orrick.com atalarides@orrick.com The case is David Tompkins, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Lead Case No. 5:13-CV-05682-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The consolidated litigation is captioned In re 23andMe Consumer Products Litigation. ACT EVENT: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, "Flores" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lucia Flores, Daniel Moreno, Abel Moreno, Shameka Donnell, Vontrael Donnell, Tiffany Donnell, Travon Donnell, Robert McDaniel, and Yolanda Simpson v. ACT Event Services, Inc., Roman Luis Gaona, Final & Touch Cleaning Services a/k/a Final Touch Cleaning Services, Inc., and Final Touch Cleaning Service, Case No. 3:14-cv-02412 (N.D. Tex., July 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and Collective Action Plaintiffs for wages earned while employed by the Defendants. ACT Event Services, Inc., conducts events planning business in Texas. Final & Touch Cleaning Services, provides commercial and residential cleaning services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Dortch, Esq. Lauren Catherine Tow, Esq. Tom A. Carse, Esq. COOPER & SCULLY 900 Jackson, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 712-9530 Facsimile: (214) 712-9540 E-mail: micah.dortch@cooperscully.com lauren.tow@cooperscully.com tom@carselaw.com AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Sued for Conspiring to Fix Propane Tank Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arrow Hardware, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Amerigas Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, L.P., Amerigas Propane, Inc., Ugi Corporation, Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas L.P., Case No. 2:14-cv-04132 (E.D. Pa. July 7, 2014), arises from the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of propane exchange tanks by reducing their fill levels. Amerigas Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, L.P., Amerigas Propane, Inc., Ugi Corporation, Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas L.P., are in the business of distribution and sale of exchangeable portable steel tanks containing propane gas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market St., Ste 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - Harris L. Pogust, Esq. Tobias L. Millrod, Esq. POGUST, BRASLOW & MILLROD LLC 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 15, 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 941-4204 Facsimile: (610) 941-4245 E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com tmillrood@pbmattorneys.com ARDSLEY COUNTRY: Faces "Arciola" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert J. Arciola v. The Ardsley Country Club, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05057 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Ardsley Country Club, Inc., owns a country club located at North Mountain Drive, Ardsley, Westchester County, NY, 10503. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. PAUL MCIINNES, LLP 2000 Baltimore, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Class Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Armtec Infrastructure Inc. on July 7 disclosed that the previously disclosed agreement to settle the proposed class action proceedings against the Corporation and others commenced by investors who purchased shares of the Corporation during the period of March 24, 2011 through June 8, 2011 has received court approval in Ontario and Quebec. This settlement provides for a payment in the amount of approximately Cdn. $12.9 million, inclusive of all taxes, fees, interest and costs, which amount will be paid by Armtec's insurers and, accordingly, will not impact Armtec's cash resources. A court-approved notice is expected to be issued to class members, which will detail claim and opt-out procedures. Despite court approval, the proposed settlement remains subject to, among other things, the fulfillment of certain conditions concerning the number of opt-outs from the proposed settlement. About Armtec Infrastructure Inc. Armtec is a manufacturer and marketer of a comprehensive range of infrastructure products and engineered construction solutions for customers in a diverse cross-section of industries that are located in every region of Canada, as well as in selected markets globally. ASA COLLEGE: Misrepresents Degree Programs, "Sanchez" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Karilinfrica Sanchez, Shawanna Dilworth, Nelson Forastieri, Andre Lashley, Tommy Miranda, and Renee Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASA College, Inc., Alex Shchegol, Victoria Kostyukov; Victoria Shtamler; Roberto Dumaual; Lesia Willis-Campbell; Jose Valencia; Shanthi Konkoth; Mark Mirenberg; Alexander Agafonov; and John/Janedoes 1 and 2, Case No. 1:14-cv-05006 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014), arises from a massive scheme to draw millions of dollars of federal and state financial aid at the students' expense and detriment by systematically and fraudulently misrepresenting the nature of ASA's certificate and degree programs to past, current, and prospective students. ASA College, Inc., a privately owned, for-profit career college in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq. Eileen M. Connor, Esq. Danielle Tarantolo, Esq. Jennifer Magida, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212)613-5000 - and - Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq. Hayley Horowitz, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 763-5000 ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Filed Misleading Proxy Statement, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Monson, derivatively on behalf of Associated Estates Realty Corp. and individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated shareholders of Associated Estates Realty Corp. v. Associated Estates Realty Corp., an Ohio Corporation, Jeffrey I. Friedman, Albert T. Adams, Michael E. Gibbons, Mark L. Milstein, James J. Sanfilippo, James A. Schoff, Richard T. Schwarz, and James M. Delaney, Case No. 1:14-cv-01477 (N.D. Ohio, July 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for breaching their fiduciary duty of candor by filing a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Associated Estates Realty Corporation 2011 Equity-Based Award Plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aanchal Soni, Esq. Rochelle Lynn Paley, Esq. James D. Wilson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES D. WILSON 29225 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 35 Cleveland, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 342-4138 Facsimile: (216) 342-4288 E-mail: asoni@wilsonlawyers.com rpaley@wilsonlawyers.com jwilson@wilsonlawyers.com ASTA PARKING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro A. Rodriguez, Jarol Julian Merino, and others similarly- situated v. Asta Parking, Inc, a Florida corporation, Prakash Patel individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61542 (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Asta Parking, Inc., is a valet parking company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A. 5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: (305) 403-2000 Facsimile: (305) 459-3964 E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com CAPITAL PIZZA: Faces "Linkovich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Linkovich, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Capital Pizza Huts, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01865 (D. Colo. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Capital Pizza Huts, Inc., operates approximately 88 Pizza Hut franchise restaurants in Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL MCIINNES LLP 2000 Baltimore, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com CENTURY 21: Does Illegal Background Checks, "White" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Latifah White, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Century 21 Department Stores LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 05058 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for procuring background checks on employees and job applicants without making a legally required stand-alone disclosure and receiving written authorization. Century 21 Department Stores LLC is a New York City retailer offering top designer merchandise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas P. Melito, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713)877-8788 CHICAGO, IL: State High Court Tossed Health Insurance Requirement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Signaling trouble for Gov. Pat Quinn's pension-reform law, the Illinois Supreme Court on July 3, 2014, tossed a new requirement for retired state employees to contribute to their health insurance premiums, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service. The 2012 overhaul of the state's health insurance payments eliminated the statutory standards for state contributions to pensioners' health insurance premiums, instead allowed the director of the Department of Central Management Services to make an annual determination as to the amounts charged to the state and to retirees. Pensioners claimed in a lawsuit that the change violated the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution, which provides that "membership in any pension or retirement system of the State shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired." The Illinois Supreme Court was nearly unanimous in finding for the retirees on July 3, 2014. "The [constitution] drafters chose expansive language that goes beyond annuities and the terms of the Pension Code, defining the range of protected benefits broadly to encompass those attendant to membership in the state's retirement systems," Justice Charles Freeman wrote for the six-member majority. "Then, as now, subsidized health care was one of those benefits. For us to hold that such benefits are not among the benefits of membership protected by the constitution would require us to construe article XIII, section 5, in a way that the plain language of the provision does not support. We may not rewrite the pension protection clause to include restrictions and limitations that the drafters did not express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve." Gov. Quinn's pension-reform law, passed in December 2013 and already the target of several class actions, may now have trouble staying afloat. The law reduces cost-of-living increases for pensioners, gradually raises the retirement age for employees, and caps their "pensionable salary," in an effort to patch up a $100 billion deficit in the state pension system. Last year, the state devoted 22 percent of its general revenue fund to public employee pensions. "Today, the Illinois Supreme Court made it very clear that the Pension Clause means what it says," state Senate president John Cullerton said in a statement. "If the court's decision is predictive, the challenge of reforming our pension systems will remain." But a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's office told the Chicago Tribune the decision "has no direct impact" on the pension litigation. "While this decision is very clear on the fact that the pension clause covers health care benefits, the arguments in the pension reform litigation are different than the ones in this healthcare case," Attorney General spokeswoman Maura Possley said. "We will continue to vigorously defend the pension reform law." The appellate case is Roger Kanerva, et al. v. Malcolm Weems, et al., Case No. 2014 IL 115811, in the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. CITY LIFE: Faces "Barra" Suit in Nev. Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Cecilia Barra, Patricia Arias, Ubakvka Rolevska, and Mayra Onofre v. City Life Usa, Inc., Corporate, LLC, Higuchi Developer, Inc., Aliza Elazar Higuchi, and Nita Labouz, Case No. 2:14-cv-01101 (D. Nev. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. City Life USA, Inc., Corporate, LLC, Higuchi Developer, Inc., own and operate retail establishments in and around Clark County, Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq. Dana Siegocki, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2965 S. Jones Blvd, Suite E-4 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 Facsimile: (702) 385-1827 E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com dana@overtimelaw.com - and - Joel Beck, Esq. LAWLOR WINSTON WHITE & MURPHY 2350 S. Jones Blvd #101-3C Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (855) 529-2325 COMCAST CORP: Race Discrimination Suit Can Proceed as Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ameet Sachdev, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a federal judge has allowed some African-American employees alleging race discrimination at a Comcast Corp. facility on the South Side to sue as a class, a decision that would increase the risk for the company. Eleven current and former workers brought the lawsuit in 2011. With the class certification, they are suing on behalf of about 350 people who have worked at the facility since 2005. The mere certification of a class-action suit can prompt defendants to settle in light of the sums at stake. In this case, class members could each get up to $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, said Noelle Brennan, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. With 350 class members, the potential damages could total $105 million, not including back pay, attorneys' fees or the cost of other injunctive relief. The issue before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly was not whether Comcast discriminated against African-Americans who worked at its South Side operation, at 721 E. 112th St. The bigger question before him was whether the workers had enough in common to join together in a single suit. The plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to a hostile work environment where they were called "ghetto techs" and other racially derogatory terms. They also accused Comcast of forcing them to work in a substandard facility that was infested with cockroaches and rats. Despite employee complaints about the working conditions, Comcast did nothing to remedy the discrimination, the suit said. Judge Kennelly found that several named plaintiffs and potential class members heard racial slurs in the workplace, which provided proof of the common question of whether a hostile environment existed for African-American employees. The judge also said the issue of facility conditions is common to the employees who worked there. "Comcast has not persuasively argued that '(q)uestions of individual damage calculations will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class,'" Judge Kennelly wrote in a opinion released on July 5. The plaintiffs also sought to have a class of employees certified based on claims of disparate pay, promotions and discipline, but the judge rejected the request. "This decision," Ms. Brennan said, "demonstrates that when plaintiffs put forth overwhelming evidence of a racially hostile work environment, class certification is not just appropriate, but necessary." A Comcast spokesman said the company "is pleased that the court has denied part of the motion for class certification, and we disagree with the court's decision to grant this motion in part." He added that Comcast "intends to defend itself vigorously in court, and the company is committed to nondiscrimination in all of its employment decisions." DELL INC: RI Court Tosses Negligence Count in Sales Tax Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that Dell was not negligent by collecting sales taxes on certain services purchased in conjunction with the sale of its computer products. In the class action lawsuit, two plaintiffs, Nicholas T. Long and Julianne Ricci, claimed Dell violated the DTPA and was negligent when it collected sales taxes from them in 2000, according to the June 27 opinion. Justices Paul A. Suttell, Maureen McKenna Goldberg, Francis X. Flaherty and Gilbert V. Indeglia voted in the majority, with Goldberg authoring the opinion. Justice William P. Robinson III concurred in part and dissented in part. "A justice of the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dell on both counts," the opinion states. "This case has been pending for more than ten years and thus far has resulted in two opinions of this Court. It is not over." The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the negligence count and on the request for injunctive relief by Mr. Long. "However, the grant of summary judgment on the (Deceptive Trade Practices Act) count by . . . Ricci is vacated," the opinion states. "Additionally, we affirm the Superior Court justice's grant of the plaintiffs' motion to strike the tax administrator's affirmative defenses." Mr. Long and Ms. Ricci purchased Dell computers in late 2000 and also selected an optional service contract. In May 2003, they filed a class action lawsuit against Dell, claiming it charged both Ms. Ricci and Mr. Long sales tax on nontaxable services. The two-count complaint alleged that the defendants violated the DTPA and were liable for negligence. Dell moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration, arguing that by accepting delivery of the goods, the plaintiffs agreed to the terms and conditions agreement, which contained an arbitration provision. The Superior Court denied that motion and entered an order of final judgment on March 29, 2004. The defendants appealed from that judgment. In March 2007, while the appeal of the order denying the motion to compel arbitration was pending, the defendants moved for summary judgment. In response, the plaintiffs requested that the Tax Administrator for the Rhode Island Division of Taxation be notified of the proceeding because the defendants' contentions on summary judgment implicated Rhode Island tax law. The tax administrator then moved to intervene in the case. The Superior Court justice permitted the tax administrator to intervene solely "for the purpose of appearing and being heard on the issues of subject matter jurisdiction, the proper interpretation and construction of tax regulations and statutes, and the application and constitutional validity of tax statutes." The tax administrator moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Superior Court justice denied the motion to dismiss. The defendants and the tax administrator petitioned the Rhode Island Supreme Court for writs of certiorari to review the question of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the court granted the petitions. On Dec. 14, 2009, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued separate opinions on these preliminary issues. "In DeFontes . . . we held that the Superior Court justice properly denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration because plaintiffs did not agree to be bound by the terms and conditions in the shrinkwrap agreement contained in the computer's packaging," the opinion states. "In Long . . . we held that that the Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the DTPA claim and ancillary jurisdiction over the negligence claim. We remanded the case to the Superior Court." With the arbitration and subject-matter jurisdiction issues resolved, the Superior Court turned to the defendants' summary judgment motion. After concluding that Ms. Ricci was improperly taxed, the Superior Court next addressed Dell's legal arguments that it was nonetheless not liable under the DTPA or in negligence. Addressing the negligence claim, the Superior Court concluded that Dell did not owe a duty to Ms. Ricci, and therefore Ms. Ricci did not have an actionable tort claim. Turning to the DTPA claim, the court concluded that "as a matter of law, Dell's actions did not constitute negligence or violate the DTPA." On April 9, 2012, an order and final judgment entered, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion to strike. The plaintiffs appealed the order granting summary judgment to defendants, and the tax administrator appealed the order striking his affirmative defenses. In his opinion, Justice Robinson stated that he concurred in the majority's ruling concerning its affirmance of the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in Dell's favor on the count of negligence; its affirmance of the Superior Court's dismissal of the requests of Mr. Long for injunctive and declaratory relief; and its affirmance of the Superior Court's granting of plaintiffs' motion to strike the tax administrator's affirmative defenses. "However, as for the majority's vacating the Superior Court's granting of Dell's motion for summary judgment on count 1 of the complaint (alleging violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act), I must respectfully, but very vigorously, record my dissent," Justice Robinson's opinion states. "Taking into account settled principles of law as well as the plain meaning of the following words -- immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and material -- I am convinced that no reasonable jury could conclude that Dell violated the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)." The majority opinion states that, while Dell can argue that it was operating under a "good faith interpretation of tax law," a jury could also infer that "Dell's efforts to avoid its own tax nexus with Rhode Island unfairly resulted in consumers being charged for taxes that they should not have been charged," Justice Robinson's opinion states. "Contrary to the stance adopted by my colleagues in the majority, I am completely unable to perceive any evidence presented by Ms. Ricci suggesting that Dell's actions were anything other than a 'good faith interpretation of tax law,'" his opinion states. "Moreover, in what I consider to be a further departure from common sense, the majority perceives a possible deception and unfairness in a practice from which Dell does not profit one whit," he states. "For the reasons which I have just discussed, I must dissent from the majority's determination that a genuine issue of material fact remains with respect to whether Dell's actions were immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous and, accordingly, unfair." Rhode Island Supreme Court case number: 12-248 ELAVON INC: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Stewart, and other similarly situated employees v. Elavon Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00310 (E.D. Tenn. July 7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and equal amount of liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Elavon, Inc., offers credit card terminals and credit card payment processing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse D. Nelson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JESSE D. NELSON PLLC P.O. Box 22685 Knoxville, TN 37933 Telephone: (865) 383-1053 Facsimile: (865) 383-1054 E-mail: jesse@jessenelsonlaw.com EXPRESS FASHION: Faces Privacy Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that Express Fashion Apparel LLC is accused in a class action filed on July 7 of violating a California privacy law when a cashier collected the phone number and email address of a customer who was paying with his credit card. The complaint, brought by lead plaintiff Andrew Staveley, alleges Express has a "uniform policy" of requesting customers' personal information at checkout. He accuses the company of violating California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by instructing employees to obtain phone numbers and email addresses in conjunction with their credit card information. Mr. Staveley visited an Express store in San Louis Obispo, California, last month, the lawsuit said, and during checkout, the cashier asked him for his email address and telephone number, which he gave. The complaint said Mr. Staveley believed he needed to provide the information to complete his purchase and obtain his receipt. After the Express employee recorded the information into a cash register, Mr. Staveley used his credit card to complete his purchase, according to the suit. "At this point in the transaction, Defendant had Plaintiff's credit card number, name, telephone number and e-mail address recorded in its databases," the complaint said. The plaintiff said shortly after visiting Express, he received an email from the company. According to the complaint, Express "utilized a policy whereby [its] cashiers both request and record personal identification information in conjunction with credit card transactions at the point-of-sale in [its] retail establishments." Mr. Staveley seeks to represent a proposed class of Express customers who shopped at one of the company's California retail stores in the last year. The lawsuit seeks an award in the amount of $1,000 for Mr. Staveley and each of the class members. The complaint is the latest in a string of suits brought against retailers operating in the Golden State under California's privacy law. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., OfficeMax North America Inc. and Redbox Automated Retail LLC have all been accused in lawsuits of violating the Song-Beverly Act by collecting customer ZIP codes and credit card information. Mr. Staveley's attorney Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group APC suggested on July 8 that the collection of personal telephone numbers represents a greater invasion of customer privacy because scores of people can be identified as living in the same ZIP code, but a person can be individually linked with their phone number. "A telephone number is far more personal than a ZIP code," Mr. Kazerounian said. Mr. Staveley is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Matthew M. Loker of Kazerouni Law Group APC, Joshua Swigart of Hyde & Swigart and Sina Rezvanpour, Shuan Lue and Sara Rezvanpour of RKR Legal. The case is Andrew Staveley v. Express Fashion Apparel Inc., case number 2:14-cv-05258, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that an Alabama hospital on July 7 asked a federal judge to throw out a proposed class action over an employee's theft of sensitive patient information, saying the plaintiffs have failed to link the data breach to any actual economic harm they have suffered. In a brief filed in Alabama federal court, Flowers Hospital argued that the plaintiffs' allegation that the data breach allowed identity thieves to file false tax returns in their names isn't enough to establish standing to maintain the lawsuit. Although four of the five named plaintiffs assert that an unidentified third party used their Social Security numbers to file phony tax returns, the hospital said they fail to link that crime to a financial loss. They don't claim, for example, that they have been denied their tax refunds or have incurred unreimbursed fees or expenses from the alleged fraud, according to the brief. "The conclusory allegations in the amended complaint fail to satisfy the requirement that they show an injury in fact in order to confer standing," the hospital said. Flowers Hospital -- located in Dohan, Alabama -- discovered in February that an employee, Kamarian D. Millender, had stolen a trove of patient data, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers and health insurance information. Mr. Millender has since been arrested and charged with trafficking in stolen identities, and the hospital has agreed to provide affected patients with free credit monitoring. The plaintiffs, led by Bradley S. Smith, lodged their complaint in May, claiming the hospital "flagrantly disregarded" their privacy rights by failing to safeguard their personal information. The suit alleges that the hospital's failures violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and subjected them to increased risk of identity theft and medical fraud. However, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, the hospital said on July 7 that the increased likelihood of identity theft in the future was not enough to confer standing on the plaintiffs. "In fact, most federal courts that have analyzed data breach cases, especially the post-Clapper cases, have determined that plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims of increased likelihood of harm were too attenuated," the brief said. In addition to its standing challenge, the hospital argued that several of the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for independent reasons. For example, the plaintiffs contend that Flowers Hospital was negligent as a matter of law because it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act and Alabama law. But the hospital pointed out on July 7 that Alabama is one of the few states in the U.S. that doesn't have a data breach notification law or similar statute, questioning which state statute the plaintiffs were referring to. The hospital also said it "vehemently denies" that it violated HIPPA, but added that such a violation wouldn't amount to "negligence per se" anyway. M. Adam Jones of M. Adam Jones & Associates LLC, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Law360 on July 8 that he was confident the case would survive the hospital's motion to dismiss. He added that only the criminals responsible know exactly how many patients had their information compromised, but that it was safe to assume the number is in the hundreds, if not more than 1,000. "We intend to find out," he said. Flowers Hospital is represented by Richard E. Smith -- resmith@csattorneys.com -- Jonathan W. Macklem -- jwmacklem@csattorneys.com -- and J. Paul Zimmerman -- jpz@csattorneys.com -- of Christian & Small LLP. The plaintiffs are represented by M. Adam Jones and Jordan S. Davis of M. Adam Jones & Associates LLC and James M. Terrell -- jterrell@mmlaw.net -- of McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC. The case is Smith et al. v. Triad of Alabama LLC d/b/a Flowers Hospital, case number 1:14-cv-00324, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. FORD MOTOR: Mechanic Can Sue for Further Damages in Asbestos Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Egelko, writing for SFGate, reports that the state Supreme Court on July 9 allowed a former Bay Area service station owner to seek additional damages from Ford Motor Co. for exposing him to brake-lining asbestos that has afflicted him with terminal cancer. A jury awarded Patrick Scott $1.5 million in damages and legal costs against Ford in November 2012. The July 9 order allows him to ask another jury for punitive damages. Mr. Scott and his wife, Sharon, have settled claims against other automakers for undisclosed amounts. Mr. Scott worked in a Navy shipyard, where he was also exposed to asbestos, before opening his first service station in Sausalito in 1965. He leased an Atlantic Richfield station in San Francisco in 1970, then moved his business to a Beacon station in St. Helena in 1977. He stopped working in 2011 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable form of lung cancer that is caused by asbestos but typically does not show up until decades after exposure. Asbestos has long been used in the linings of motor vehicle brakes and clutches and is still used in brake pads, though it is banned in some other products. Scientists had established its connection to cancer by the mid-1950s, but the federal government did not regulate workplace asbestos exposure until 1971. According to court records, Ford mentioned asbestos in one of its publications in 1975 but did not put warnings on brake cartons until at least 1980. A Ford internal investigation cited by Scott's lawyers found mesothelioma among company employees in the late 1970s and early 1980s at nearly three times the rate of the general population. The jury found Ford 22 percent responsible for Mr. Scott's suffering, assigned 19 percent of the responsibility to Mr. Scott himself, apparently for continuing to work after he learned of the danger, and attributed the rest of the blame to the Navy and other entities. Ford appealed the verdict, arguing that information about the potential dangers of asbestos in brake linings was widely known to auto mechanics from the time Scott started working. But the state's First District Court of Appeal said in April that the jury heard evidence that Ford had known of the risks before Mr. Scott did and failed to warn him. Ford also argued that the jury should not be allowed to award punitive damages because they are barred by law in Michigan, where the company is based. That argument was accepted by a judge in Alameda County, where the case was tried, but rejected by the appeals court, which said Ford was not entitled to a "nationwide shield" against penalties that California juries can assess for egregious conduct. That ruling entitles Mr. Scott to a partial retrial and is also a precedent for future cases. FT SUPERMARKET: Faces "Concepcion" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Farlin Concepcion, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. F.T. Supermarket Services Inc. d/b/a Foodtown Supermarket and Robin Estevez, Case No. 1:14-cv-05028 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. F.T. Supermarket Services Inc., is a supermarket located at 756 St. Nicholas Avenue, New York, NY 10031. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 GEMINI MANUFACTURING: Recalls Power Chargers Due to Burn Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Gemini Manufacturing Inc., of Gaffney, S.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 31,000 Power adaptor/chargers (promotional giveaway). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The adaptors can overheat, posing a burn hazard. The firm has received one report of a consumer who was burned on their hand. The recalled adaptor/chargers are used to charge cell phones and other electronic products and have model number ADCP3-1000 imprinted on the plug side of the adaptor. They are plastic cubes about 1" to 1 1/4" on one side with two prongs for plugging into an electrical outlet and a USB port on the other. Recalled chargers come in five different colors: black, blue, green, red and white. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/lLbeEq The recalled products were manufactured in China and distributed by Distributed by The recalled adaptors/chargers were distributed free as a promotional giveaway at trade shows nationwide from October 2013 to April 2014. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled adaptors/chargers and throw them away. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kluessendorf" Suit Over Ignition Switch -------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra K. Kluessendorf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC; General Motors Holding, LLC; Delphi Automotive PLC; and DPH-DAS LLC f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05035 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose switch engine defects of General Motors vehicles. General Motors LLC, is a Delaware company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, conducts business in this District, and is responsible for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of all General Motor automobiles in the United States, as well as engineering design, development, research and development, and manufacturing activities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Quinn, Esq. FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP LLP 270 Lafayette Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212)680-5150 Facsimile: (646)277-1151 E-mail: rquinn@flgllp.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield Jr., Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF &BLANCHFIELD El 250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651)287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Switch Defects ------------------------------------------------------------ Alondra Ibanez and Sylvia Degado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-05238 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose ignition switch defects in General Motors vehicles. General Motors LLC, is a Delaware company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, conducts business in this District, and is responsible for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of all General Motor automobiles in the United States, as well as engineering design, development, research and development, and manufacturing activities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq. SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES AND BARNERD LLP 455 Market Street Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94015 Telephone: (415) 536-3986 Facsimile: (415) 537-4120 E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com - and - Jayne Conroy, Esq. Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq. Andrea Bierstein, Esq. Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jconroy@simmonsfirm.com phanly@simmonsfirm.com abierstein@simmonsfirm.com mbreit@simmonsfirm.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Recalls Panadol Advance Bottle ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), of Moon Township, Penn., announced a voluntary recall of about 10,600 Panadol Advance 100 count caplets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The packaging is not child-resistant as required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. These products contain acetaminophen which is required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act to be sealed with child-resistant packaging. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves bottles of 100ct Panadol Advance pain relievers. The medicine was sold in white containers with a blue label, inside a blue box. "Panadol" and "Advance" are printed on the label. Lot numbers and dates codes are located on the left side panel of the box and on the left side of the label on the bottle, near the bar code. Lot numbers and date codes included in the recall are: Lot number: 14241, expiration date: 02/2015 Lot number: 14002, expiration date: 10/2014 Lot number: 13881, expiration date: 09/2014 Lot number: 13801, expiration date: 09/2014 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/XCuAHU The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A. and sold exclusively at drug, grocery and mass merchandise stores in Puerto Rico from Nov. 2012 through Feb. 2014 for about $10. Consumers should immediately place the product out of a child's sight and reach, and contact GSK for a refund. HURONIA REGIONAL: Ex-Residents Face Delay in Getting Case Files --------------------------------------------------------------- Paola Loriggio, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that some former residents of an Ontario institution for the developmentally disabled are facing delays in obtaining their case files from the province after settling a class-action lawsuit out of court. Many of those involved in the lawsuit over alleged abuse and neglect at the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, Ont., are seeking access to records of their stay there as they prepare to submit a claim for compensation. Lawyers representing the class, which includes those institutionalized at the center between 1945 and 2009, say the deadline to file a claim had to be pushed back from Aug. 5 to Nov. 30 in part because of the holdup in obtaining the documents. The Ministry of Community and Social Services, which administers the records, says it has received more than 2,000 requests for case files, with more arriving daily. It says 1,000 files have been released, some 960 requests are still being processed and roughly 70 files "have not yet been located" despite efforts to find them. Spokeswoman Gloria Er-Chua says the settlement agreement doesn't require ex-residents to use their files to make a claim. However, under the terms of the settlement, more money will be awarded to those who provide more detailed accounts of what they endured at the facility. "The delay is certainly concerning to us," said David Rosenfeld, one of the lawyers representing former Huronia residents. "One of the major reasons why the settlement was achieved . . . is because the class is particularly old, they're advancing in age and persons with disabilities, as far as I understand, have a higher mortality rate than those of the normal population, so we wanted to get a settlement that would get some compensation to them relatively quickly." "And so any delays to the claims process, and the claims deadline, delays compensation to the class so of course it's concerning." A $35-million settlement was reached in September 2013 just as the suit was about to go to trial and approved in December. The agreement also called for the province to formally apologize to the thousands who lived at Huronia for the suffering they experienced there. In a speech delivered in the provincial legislature, Premier Kathleen Wynne addressed what she called a "painful chapter" in Ontario's history, saying the province had failed to protect its most vulnerable residents. Part of the agreement aims to preserve the center's grim history, which many plaintiffs feared would be swept under the rug when the case was settled without a trial. A reference to the "conditions" at the center must appear on a commemorative plaque on the Huronia grounds. The cemetery where hundreds of children were buried must be maintained and the names of the dead catalogued. Researchers will also be allowed to visit the now-closed center and retrieve artifacts they deem historically important. The facility opened in 1876 as the Orillia Asylum for Idiots and was operated by the province for 133 years before it shut down in 2009. The suit alleged residents suffered almost daily humiliation and abuse. Some said they worked in the fields for little or no money, and recalled being put in straightjackets or drugged, as well as other physical, sexual and verbal abuses. HYMANS SEAFOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Alshehabi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hymans Seafood Company, Inc.; Eli Hyman, individually; Aaron Hyman, individually; and Brad Gena, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-02724 (D.S.C., July 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation as well as other relief allowed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hymans Seafood Company, Inc., owns and operates a restaurant in downtown Charleston. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E. MILLER LAW OFFICE 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 579-7373 E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Fuel-Economy Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Ji-yoon, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that six carmakers, including two Korean and four foreign companies, have been hit with an unprecedented class-action lawsuit here for making bogus fuel-economy claims on their top-selling models. A group of 1,785 car owners filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court on July 7, seeking between 1.5 million won and 3 million won ($1,490-$2,960) each in compensation over the false gas mileage claims. Of them, 1,517 people -- or about 85 percent -- were owners of Hyundai Motor's Santa Fe sport utility vehicle, while 234 were owners of Ssangyong Motor's Korando Sports. Four of the foreign models are the Audi A4 2.0 TDI, Volkswagen Tiguan 2.0 TDI, Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee and BMW Mini Cooper Countryman. "These companies misled consumers into purchasing vehicles of a different quality and paying higher fuel costs than promised," said Kim Woong, a lawyer with law firm Yeyul representing the plaintiffs. "They were engaged in fraud, false advertising and a breach of warranty." According to Kim, Some 3,000 consumers expressed their intention to file a lawsuit and the first batch of the complaints was filed as related documents were ready. "We will continue to collect complaints by the Aug. 24 deadline and file additional lawsuits," he added. In February, a group of consumers had launched a lawsuit against Hyundai over the mileage overstatement. But the court denied the claim at the time. The new lawsuit was prompted by recent government tests that found discrepancies between the stated and actual fuel economy ratings of the six car models. On June 26, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport decided to impose 1 billion won and 200 million won in fines on Hyundai and Ssangyong, respectively, for reporting inaccurate fuel ratings on their two SUV models. On the same day, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy confirmed that the discrepancies between the stated and actual gas mileages of the two Korean cars were within the legally allowable level of 5 percent. But the Industry Ministry said it will sanction four foreign cars for overstating fuel ratings. Based on their car sales, each carmaker is expected to face fines worth 3 to 4 million won. The different test results spared much controversy among carmakers even though the government later decided that the Transport Ministry should take the initiative on related vehicle tests in the future. "We will explain our position fully in court," a Hyundai official said of the new class-action suit. JC SEAFOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yusniel H. Ramirez, and others similarly situated v. JC Seafood, Inc., a Florida corporation, The Fish Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, Carlos J. Sanguily individually, James O'Hanlon individually and Michael O'Hanlon individually, Case No. 1:14-cv- 22494 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2014), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. JC Seafood, Inc. and The Fish Company, Inc., are seafood suppliers doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS P.A. 5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: (305) 403-2000 Facsimile: (305) 459-3964 E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com JORDY'S TRUCK: "Pelayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Pelayo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jordy's Truck Parts & Service, Inc. and Cynthia Ortiz, Case No. 4:14-cv-01873 (S.D. Tex., July 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Jordy's Truck Parts & Service, Inc., owns and operates a parts store for heavy duty trucks located at 11733 Highway 75 North, Willis, Texas 77378. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net KELLOGG ROOFING: "Self" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Self, on behalf of himself and of all other individuals similarly situated v. Kellogg Roofing Construction, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01429 (M.D. Tenn. July 7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and equal amount of liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kellogg Roofing Construction, LLC, owns and operates a construction company located in Hermitage, Davidson County, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Morgan E. Smith, Esq. Randall W. Burton,Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MORGAN SMITH 144 2nd Avenue North, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 620-5848 Facsimile: (615) 244-9231 E-mail: morgan@lawonyourschedule.com LABORATORY CORP: Disclosed Credit Card Expiry Dates, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher W. Legg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61543 (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for knowingly and intentionally including credit and debit card expiration dates on its electronically printed receipts. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings provides clinical laboratory services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bret Leon Lusskin Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd. Hallandale, FL 33009 Telephone (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com LIFEGUARD PRESS: Recalls Charging Kits Due to Fire, Shock Hazards ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Lifeguard Press Inc. Bowling Green, Ky., announced a voluntary recall of about 25,400 Charging Kits. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The wall charger can overheat and emit smoke and sparks, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. The prongs on the charger can detach and remain in the electrical outlet, posing a risk of electrical shock. Lifeguard Press has received six reports of the wall chargers emitting smoke and sparking and six reports of prongs detaching from the plug. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves seven models of charging kits with universal serial bus (USB) connectors that are used to recharge Apple iPhone, iPad and iPod devices. The recalled kits were sold under the Ban.do, Jonathan Adler and Lilly Pulitzer brand names and contained a wall charger, a 12 to 24-volt car charger, a 30-pin USB cord and a Lightning port adapter. The wall chargers are plastic cubes about 1 1/4 inches long, 1 inch wide and 1/2 inch tall with two metal prongs for plugging into an electrical outlet on one end and a USB port on the opposite end. Ban.do wall chargers came in the colors yellow and black and white stripe. Jonathan Adler wall chargers came in multicolor and blue and white patterns. Lilly Pulitzer wall chargers came in multicolor floral patterns. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/Tt3HcV The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Dillard's, Lilly Pulitzer, Nordstrom's and independent boutiques nationwide from February 2014 to June 2014 for between $25 and $30. Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the USB wall charger and contact Lifeguard Press to return the charging kit for a full refund. LINGERIE FOOTBALL: Misclassifies Players to Avoid OT, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- The Lingerie League misclassifies its football players as independent contractors to avoid paying them wages and overtime, a former player claims in a class action, reports Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service. Melissa Margulies sued Legends Football League, Lingerie Football League and the league's founder and chairman Mitchell Mortaza on June 27, 2014, in Superior Court. Margulies claim some players in the 10-team league went through complete seasons without being paid a dime. Originating as a halftime show at the Superbowl, Legends Football also operates leagues in Australia and Canada. Until last year, players wore modified bras, panties, and garters. But Mortaza has since adopted the Legends Football League brand and replaced lingerie with performance wear and protective shoulder pads. According to Margulies, the league requires players to sign on as independent contractors, but the contract requires players to sign over their publicity and promotional rights, and attend all practices and promotional events. And if players do not show up at practices, games or events they may be fired. "The designation of the football players as independent contractors was and is clearly improper because the players lack the requisite control and discretion over their job responsibilities and duties to deserve treatment as independent contractors," the complaint states. Margulies, who played in the league for three years until August 2013, says players are not paid minimum wage. She says wages are tied to ticket sales and team performance. "However, there were entire seasons where plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class received no income despite playing in the football league," the 20-page complaint states. Alleging violations of labor laws, Margulies seeks general and compensatory damages, restitution, waiting time penalties, interest and costs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Morrison, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 394-0888 Facsimile: (310) 394-0811 E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com MANGOES CAFE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Rodolfo Suchite Morales, Marvin Hernandez, Thomas Hernandez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mangoes Cafe Inc., doing business as: Mangoes Mexican Bar & Grill, Walter Aguirre, Marco Aguirre, Case No. 2:14-cv-04168 (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mangoes Cafe Inc., owns and operates a restaurant located in Bethpage, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Rodriguez, Esq. Peter A. Romeo, Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 500 Bi-county Blvd Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756-0400 Facsimile: (631) 756-0547 E-mail: atarazi@laborlaws.com promeo@laborlaws.com MASTER CUTLERY: Recalls Neck Knives Due to Laceration Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Master Cutlery Inc., of Secaucus, New Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 4,000 MTech USA Karambit Neck Knife and Sheath. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The sheath does not hold the knife securely, allowing the knife to fall out of the sheath unexpectedly. This poses a risk of laceration to the consumer. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves the Karambit neck knife and sheath. The half- moon shaped knife measures 7 inches in length and was sold in an urban camo print. "MTech USA" is laser printed on the blade. Model number MT-664UC-SO is marked on the back of the knife. The knife fits into an unmarked molded black sheath that is about 4.5 inches in length. The sheath has a snap clip on the back and also comes with a beaded lanyard chain. Replacement sheaths have "MTech USA" laser printed on the back. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/nXL3ec The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Big 5 Sporting Goods stores from March 2014 through May 2014 for about $20. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled knife and sheath, store the knife and sheath in a safe area and contact Master Cutlery for instructions on obtaining a free replacement sheath. MBJ CAFETERIA: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Raul Garcia and Solomon Atanacio Maldonado, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MBJ Cafeteria Corp. d/b/a MBJ Food Services, MBJ LIC Corp., MBJ JV Inc., MBJ Downtown Inc., Joaquin Vasques, Christina Rugoso, Michael Geller, and Richard Halem, Case No. 1:14-cv-05020 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. MBJ Cafeteria Corp., MBJ LIC Corp., MBJ JV Inc., and MBJ Downtown Inc., provide cafeteria and catering services in various City University of New York higher educational institutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212)209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com MEDORA SNACKS: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Gregor Martin on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Medora Snacks, LLC, Medora Holdings, LLC, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Linda Fishman, and Barry Renow, Case No. 1:14-cv-05059 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation under Fair Labor Standards Act. Medora Snacks, LLC, Medora Holdings, LLC, Costco Wholesale Corporation own and operate PopCorners, a brand of "all natural" popped corn chip products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas P. Melito, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 ParkAvenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 MONSANTO CO: Residents Can Register Dioxin Claims in Nitro Office ----------------------------------------------------------------- The State Journal reports that people who lived, worked or attended school in areas impacted by dioxins produced at Monsanto's Nitro plant can register their interest in obtaining medical monitoring or property clean up if they haven't already done so. The Monsanto class action settlement took effect May 7. Beginning Tuesday, July 8, the court-appointed administrator of the Nitro Class Action Settlement, Thomas V. Flaherty, will have an office in Nitro through Oct. 31 to help individuals who qualify obtain benefits for exposure to the dioxins, a chemical by-product of the weed killers produced at the Nitro plant. Dioxins have been linked to cancer, birth defects and learning disabilities as well as other serious health concerns. To avoid going to trial, Monsanto agreed in 2012 to spend up to $84 million on a 30-year medical monitoring program -- $21 million for the initial testing, with another $63 million available if dioxin levels warrant. They also agreed to spend another $9 million on property clean up. The claims office, located at 2303 1st Avenue, Nitro, will be open July 8-Oct. 31 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Tuesday through Friday, and from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. Mr. Flaherty and Class Counsel Stuart Calwell said the settlement comes after eight years of litigation and appeals. Now that the agreement is finalized, settlement money can be used for "medical examinations and property cleanup services to people and property affected the production of 'dioxin' at the Nitro Monsanto plant," they said. To be eligible for medical testing, individuals must have been gone to school, worked or lived near Nitro in Putnam or Kanawha counties full-time between January 1, 1948 and Sept. 30, 2010. Those who pre-registered should receive packets in the mail. Those who haven't already registered but would like to should contact the Nitro Class Action Settlement Administrators by calling (877) 673-5049, emailing info@ncasallc.com or visiting the Nitro office. Information also is available online at www.bibbclass.com or by contacting the Calwell Practice, 500 Randolph St., Charleston. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Sued in C.D. California Over TCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph R. Manning Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly v. Monster Worldwide, Inc.; and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 8:14-cv-01035 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently and intentionally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Monster Worldwide, Inc., is an online employment solution for people seeking jobs and employers who need people. The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. O'Malley, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: jomalley@trialnewport.com MVM INC: Faces "Buckson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Guards Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rolanda Buckson, 1707 E. 31 Street, Baltimore, MD 21218 v. MVM Inc., 8301 Greensborodr., Ste 300, Mclean,VA22102 CSC Lawyers Inc., Service Co., 7 St. Paul street, Suite1660, Baltimore, MD 21202, Case No. 1:14-cv-02160 (D. Md., July 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation to security guards for required training or training time. MVM Inc. and CSC Lawyers Inc., provide security guards at various governmental facilities in Maryland, Washington, D.C. and Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devan Michael Wae Wang, Esq. Richard P. Neuworth, Esq. LEBAU AND NEUWORTH LLC 606 Baltimore Ave, Ste 201 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 296-3030 Facsimile: (410) 296-8660 E-mail: dw@joblaws.net rn@joblaws.net NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Players Can Have Up to $5K According to Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Around 100,000 college football and men's basketball players can receive up to $5,000 a year for use of their likenesses in NCAA- based video games, according to a settlement in an ongoing class action dispute, reports Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service. Attorneys for former Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller announced in June that they had reached a settlement with the NCAA over a class action, now in its fifth year, involving publicity rights for former and current college athletes. This settlement followed a $40 million settlement deal with Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Co., which is expected to go to around 100,000 college athletes. In total, a fund of $60 million is expected to be available for student athletes whose names, images and likenesses were used in EA video games, according to court documents. Testimony in the trial involving NCAA athletes on television wrapped up June 27, 2014, and U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken is expected to rule in mid-August. The terms of the video games settlement were filed in U.S. District Court on June 30, 2014. Attorneys for the plaintiffs estimate that the settlement with the NCAA would result in 75 percent of the amount they hoped to recover at trial, calling it "a very favorable outcome." The settlement with the NCAA caps payments at $1,818 per roster appearance, and $3,182 for the EA settlement. The combined settlements will create a cash fund of $60 million before fees and expenses. Sam Keller, Bryan Cummings, Bryon Bishop and Lamar Watkins are the named plaintiffs in the NCAA right-of-publicity class, and are expected to receive $5,000 each from the settlement. Keller and O'Bannon would receive $15,000 from the EA settlement. The EA settlement includes a portion for "roster-only" plaintiffs who did not have avatars in video games. Judge Wilken must approve the settlement before it goes into effect. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com leonard@hbsslaw.com - and - Stuart M. Paynter, Esq. Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq. THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC 1200 G. Street N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 626-4486 Facsimile: (866) 734-0622 E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com cboyd@smplegal.com The NCAA is represented by: Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq. Kelly M. Klaus, Esq. Rohit K. Singla, Esq. Carolyn H. Luedtke, Esq. Luis Li, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 E-mail: glenn.pomerantz@mto.com kelly.klaus@mto.com rohit.singla@mto.com carolyn.luedtke@mto.com luis.li@mto.com - and - Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Robert J. Wierenga, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 S. Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1500 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com rwierenga@schiffhardin.com The case is Samuel Michael Keller, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Electronic Arts, Inc.; National Collegiate Athletics Association; Collegiate Licensing Company, Case No. 4:09-cv-1967 CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. NEW SOUTH WALES: Defense Dept. May Face Suit Over State Mine Fire ----------------------------------------------------------------- According to Blue Mountains Gazette, a report which found that Defence personnel were responsible for the State Mine bushfire which destroyed two homes at Mr. Irvine and three others further west has added weight to fire victims' rights to compensation, according to a senior barrister. Brendan Pendergast, the class action principal with Maddens Lawyers, said the inquiry highlighted a litany of errors and a disturbing lack of procedure and supervision at the Marangaroo Training Centre when it came to fire risk and bushfire prevention. "The results of this report suggest the Defence Department's handling of fire risk at this site was, at best, disorganized and, and worst, cavalier," Mr. Pendergast said. He urged locals affected by the fires to make a claim. Maddens was offering victims a "no win, no fee" approach to its compensation claim advice, ensuring that victims would not lose out, regardless of the result. "Any compensation payouts will be greater than any costs incurred," he said. "On the other hand, if the case doesn't stand up, there are no legal fees to pay." Maddens is leading a class action on behalf of victims of the Springwood/Winmalee fire against Endeavour Energy, which it claims was responsible because of inadequate maintenance of trees. It also gained compensation for many survivors of the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria in 2009. Mr. Pendergast said the Marangaroo report showed that, for as long as 20 years, "the department completely overlooked any recommendations or suggestions they implement bushfire prevention strategies at the site, even though the training ground had been identified as a huge risk". "Even the NSW RFS had indicated the site was too risky for them to work at. Yet, still, the Defence Department made little, if no, efforts to rectify the situation." Mr. Pendergast said the cost of these oversights was now being paid for by the property owners burnt out by the fire. "People who had little knowledge of, and certainly no control over, what went on at the Marangaroo site are still today the ones that are paying the highest price for the inadequacies of the Defence Department," he said. "People affected by this fire should not feel they need to 'wear' the costs and inconvenience the October 16 fire imposed." He also suggested that fire victims often underestimated the full value of property lost in a bushfire, particularly when it came to the value of assets like trees, orchards and gardens, and the negative impact of the fire on properties, such as erosion. He encouraged any victims of the State Mine fire to contact Maddens Lawyers, either via the firm's website -- maddenslawyers.com.au -- or the hotline (1800 815 228). PACIFIC COAST: Faces "Welch" Shareholder Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Welch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pacific Coast Oil Trust, Pacific Coast Energy Company LP, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, Halbert S. Washburn, Randall H. Breitenbach, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Oppenhetmer & Co. Inc, and Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, Case No. BC550418 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2014) alleges that the Defendants made materially misleading statements and omitted material information from Pacific Coast's Registration Statements and Prospectuses. The Registration Statement made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's (1) capital expenditures and (2) hedge contracts' expiration, Mr. Welch contends. Pacific Coast Oil Trust is a Delaware statutory perpetual trust formed by Pacific Coast Energy Company LP through a conveyance of interests in California onshore oil properties located in the Santa Maria and Los Angeles Basins. Pacific Coast Energy Company LP owns the underlying properties from which these net profits interests were conveyed. Pacific Coast Energy Company LP offers oil and gas exploration, development, and production services. The Company was formerly known as BreitBura Energy Company L.P. and changed its name to Pacific Coast Energy Company LP in December 2011. The Company was founded in 1997 and is based in Los Angeles, California. PCEC (GP) LLC manages Pacific Coast Energy Company LP. Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC is the sole member of Defendant PCEC (GP) LLC. PCEC (GP) LLC is managed by the Board of Representatives of Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC. The principal business of PCEC is located in Los Angeles, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Pacific Coast Defendants. Defendants Barclays, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, UBS, Wells Fargo, RBC, Baird, Stifel, Oppenheimer, and Janney were the underwriters of the Company's Offering, served as a financial advisor, and assisted in the preparation and dissemination of the Pacific Coast Defendants' alleged false and misleading Registration Statement. The Underwriter Defendants are investment banking houses which specialize, inter alia, in underwriting public offerings of securities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter W. Noss, Esq. John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 4771 Cromwell Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (213) 985-1274 Facsimile: (213) 985-1278 E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com jjasnoch@scott-scott.com - and - Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12 Cleveland Heights, OH 44106 Telephone: (216) 229-6088 Facsimile: (216) 229-6092 E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com - and - Donald Broggi, Esq. Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com tlaughlin@scott-scott.com - and - Amber Eck, Esq. ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 625 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878 E-mail: ambere@zhlaw.com PASADENA CITY, CA: Suit Disputes Water Rates Set for Nonresidents ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.; Linnea Warren; Thomas Wolfe; Edward Henry; and all others similarly situated v. City of Pasadena, Case No. BC550394 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 1, 2014) challenges two components of the rates charged by the City of Pasadena for water service to nonresidents. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is a nonprofit public benefit corporation with over 200,000 California taxpaying members. HJTA was organized under the laws of California for the purpose, among others, of advocating the reduction of taxes and engaging in civil litigation on behalf of its members and all California taxpayers to achieve its tax reduction goals. The Individual Defendants are Pasadena water customers. On behalf of themselves and all members of the class they represent, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that both components are invalid, and a refund of the amounts charged for each component beginning March 24, 2013. The City of Pasadena is a charter city in California. The City levies and collects the charges that are the subject of the litigation. The City operates its own utility, designated Pasadena Water and Power, for the provision of water and electricity to its residents and nonresident subscribers. Pasadena Water and Power is not an independently governed separate entity, but is a department of the City. The City bills its customers a fixed monthly "distribution and customer charge" based on their meter size, plus a tiered "commodity rate" based on the amount of water they consume during the month. Under Section 13.20.030 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, Area B customers (those outside the city) are charged approximately 25% more than Area A customers (those inside the city) for both "distribution and customer charges" and "commodity rates." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Coupal, Esq. Timothy A. Bittle, Esq. J. Ryan Cogdill, Esq. HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION 921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 444-9950 PFIZER INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Celecoxib Patent ------------------------------------------------------------- AFSCME Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC, and Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Case No. 3:14-cv-00482 (E.D. Va., July 3, 2014), alleges that the Defendants implemented a scheme to unlawfully prolong patent protection for Celecoxib to avoid the consequences of the Federal Circuit ruling invalidating its patent and allowing earlier competition into the market for Celebrex. Pfizer, Inc., is engaged in the worldwide marketing, production, and distribution of pharmaceutical products, including in this district. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Buckley Warden IV, Esq. Wyatt B. Durrette Jr., Esq. DURRETTECRUMP PLC 1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 916-6597 Facsimile: (804) 775-6911 E-mail: bwarden@durrettecrump.com wdurrette@durrettecrump.com PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Pfizer Inc. won the dismissal on July 8 of a long-running shareholder class action accusing the company of misleading investors about the safety of its Celebrex and Bextra pain-relieving drugs. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in New York came ahead of a Sept. 9 trial in the case, which investors launched in 2004 and followed an earlier ruling precluding testimony by the plaintiffs' damages expert. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, James Sabella -- jsabella@gelaw.com -- had acknowledged at a hearing after that May ruling that "without a damages expert a securities fraud trial can't be tried." They sought to amend a report issued by their expert, Daniel Fischel, a former dean of the law school at the University of Chicago whose methodology for calculating damages Swain had found to be flawed. Judge Swain, however, said the plaintiffs did not deserve a second chance and agreed with Pfizer the case should be dismissed. "Plaintiffs' failure to proffer admissible loss causation and damages evidence is fatal to plaintiffs' claims," Judge Swain wrote. Pfizer in a statement said it was pleased with the ruling, adding it "has always believed the evidence in this case demonstrates that the company's historical statements about Celebrex and Bextra were accurate." Mr. Sabella, a partner at law firm Grant & Eisenhofer who represented lead plaintiff Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The class action, which Swain had previously certified, covered investors who bought Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000, and October 19, 2005. Concerns about the safety of Celebrex and Bextra began to mount following the release of medical studies in late 2004, when rival Merck & Co Inc withdrew its own Vioxx drug from the market because of associated cardiovascular risks. The lawsuit contended before fall of 2004, Pfizer and its executives hid material results of tests conducted starting in 1998 regarding the safety of Celebrex and Bextra that indicated similar risks. Revenues from Celebrex and Bextra fell by over $2 billion in the first nine months of 2005 after the safety concerns were made public, the lawsuit said. The company's market capitalization meanwhile dropped by $68.4 billion between October 2004 and October 2005, the lawsuit said. Pfizer pulled Bextra from the U.S. market in April 2005 at the recommendation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In September 2009, Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle a U.S. Department of Justice probe into the marketing of drugs including Bextra. The case is In re: Pfizer Inc Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 05-md-01688. PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Price" Class Suit Over Merger With Avago --------------------------------------------------------------- David L. Price, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. PLX Technology, Inc., Michael J. Salameh, Martin Colombatto, Stephen Domenik, John H. Hart, David K. Raun, Ralph Schmitt, Eric Singer, Patrick Verderico, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., and Pluto Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 9853 (Del. Ch. Ct., July 2, 2014) arises out of the Agreement and Plan of Merger between the Company and Avago pursuant to which Avago has agreed to acquire all the outstanding shares of the Company through the Offer. PLX is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Sunnyvale, California. PLX designs, develops, manufactures and sells integrated circuits that perform critical system connectivity functions. The Company provides a range of connectivity bridges that allow various systems to communicate with each other and offers a full complement of semiconductor devices, software development kits, hardware design kits, software drivers, and firmware solutions. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Avago is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avago Technologies Limited, a Singapore corporation with principal executive offices located in Yishun Avenue, Singapore. Avago is a leading designer, developer, and global supplier of analog, digital, mixed signal, and optoelectronics components and subsystems and specializes in III-V compound semiconductor design and processing. Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avago. Merger Sub was created for the sole purpose of closing the Proposed Transaction and has not engaged in any other business activities prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com - and - Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4693 E-mail: nespole@whafh.com kaufman@whafh.com POCAHONTAS COUNTY, VA: Residents' Appeal Over Landfill Fees Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The State Journal reports that the state Supreme Court rejected an appeal by some Pocahontas County residents who don't think they should have to pay mandatory garbage fees if they recycle, compost and make use of "free days" at the local landfill. Residents John Leyzorek, Douglas H. Bernier and Charlotte W. Elza had appealed a circuit court order that collectively assessed several thousand dollars in fees, penalties and interest against them for their non-payment, but the court affirmed the circuit court ruling and calling their arguments "frivolous." The three had insisted they should be exempt from paying for garbage service because they use alternative methods of disposal, but the court said not using so-called "green boxes" for recycling or subscribing to the refuse service "does not excuse the non- payment" of the refuse fee. A Pocahontas County Circuit judge disagreed, however, ordering Bernier to pay $49 in unpaid "green box" fees for 2006, plus $150 in statutory penalties as well as costs and pre- and post-judgment interest; Mr. Leyzorek was ordered to pay $498 in unpaid "green box" fees for 2001 through 2006, plus $900 in statutory penalties, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest as well as a judgment. Ms. Elza, too, was fined $498 in unpaid green box fees for 2001 through 2006, plus $90 in statutory penalties, plus costs and pre- and post-judgment interest. Mr. Leyzorek, Mr. Bernier and Ms. Elza also questioned whether a county has the authority to enact a mandatory refuse service fee, an argument the court dismissed as "meritless." They also questioned whether they were being deprived of equal protection and if the "green box" fee was permissible tax under the state constitution. The court, however, found that a mandatory refuse fee "is a reasonable and valid exercise of the police powers" and that county and regional solid waste authorities have a duty to develop a comprehensive litter and solid waste control plan and thus have rule-making authority. "The Court concludes that the circuit court correctly awarded respondent summary judgment because the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for petitioners," the justice pointed out in the memorandum decision. RADIOSHACK CORP: Liable in Pennsylvania OT Suit, Judge Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ Sophia Pearson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that RadioShack Corp., the electronics retailer that could run short on cash next year, was found by a federal judge to have violated Pennsylvania law for calculating overtime wages. While RadioShack's calculations comply with baseline federal regulations, they violate the state's more expansive Minimum Wage Act, which requires compensating workers for overtime at 1-1/2 times the basic rate, U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg in Philadelphia ruled on July 10. RadioShack said last year that it faces at least $5.8 million in claims for unpaid overtime in the Pennsylvania case. Former store manager David Verderame sued the chain last year in state court accusing it of shortchanging workers on overtime since April 2010. RadioShack had the case moved to federal court and asked Goldberg to dismiss the claims. The July 10 ruling sets the stage for evidence gathering on potential damages and time-keeping data, Pete Winebrake, an attorney for Mr. Verderame, said in a phone interview. RadioShack used a fluctuating workweek method, paying certain salaried employees at half the regular rate for overtime hours. Judge Goldberg cited two similar cases in which federal judges had ruled that method of calculation impermissible under Pennsylvania law. RadioShack, which is facing increasing pressure from an industrywide slump in electronics demand, may run short on cash next year, Standard & Poor's said in a June 16 report. The Fort Worth, Texas-based company faces a significant chance of default in the next year, according to S&P, which lowered the company's credit rating to CCC. The case is Verderame v. RadioShack Corp., 13-02539, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). REAL TIME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Lee Tannlund, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 1:14- cv-05149 (N.D. Ill. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for its abusive and harassing tactics in an effort to collect debt. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., is one of the largest non-originating servicers of real estate mortgage loans and specializes in residual loan workouts, including non-mortgage debts, for other large financial institutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Daniel Ankcornm, Esq. ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 870-0600 Facsimile: (619) 684-3541 E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com RIVKA ORLYN: "Felix" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Felix, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Rivka Orlyn d/b/a Cafe Mogador, Case No. 1:14-cv-05027 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Rivka Orlyn owns restaurant called Cafe Mogador located at 101 Saint Marks Place, New York, NY, 10009. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action Over 2011 Floods --------------------------------------------------------------- The Age's Amy Remeikis and The Australian Associated Press report that Australia's largest class action has been filed on behalf of Queenslanders, as victims of the 2011 floods seek to claim damages from the Queensland government and water agencies Seqwater and Sunwater. Maurice Blackburn Lawyers filed the claim in the New South Wales Supreme Court on behalf of more than 4000 flood affected residents and businesses. Principal Damian Scattini said the January 2011 flood, which devastated much of south east Queensland was "preventable". Many people have been led to assume that the January 2011 flood was caused by unprecedented heavy rainfall in early January, and that as a result the flood that occurred could not be avoided -- when that is simply wrong," Mr. Scattini said in a statement. "The claim filed on July 8 paints a much starker picture, going back to as far as December 1, 2010, and outlining that for every day in December 2010 through until mid-January 2011 there was a flood emergency -- where both dams were full, substantial heavy rain had already fallen and more rain was predicted. "Despite this, at every opportunity from December 1, 2010 onwards the flood engineers failed again and again to undertake proper release strategies for both dams, irrespective of the continuing weather warnings that made it clear more heavy rain was expected. "This continued until the engineers were left with no other option but to dump huge volumes of water at once in mid-January, leading to a flood event that should have been avoided." No specific dollar figures have been linked to the compensation claim, however estimates place it at about $1 billion. The exact figure will only be known if the class action lawyers can prove the operation of the dams created the flooding. Premier Campbell Newman said he "would love to" comment on the class action, but could not as it was now before the courts. In 2012 Queensland's long-running flood inquiry found Wivenhoe Dam operators did not not properly follow the manual on the weekend leading up to the flood peak. The inquiry also found dam engineers John Tibaldi, Rob Ayre and Terry Malone had breached Wivenhoe dam's operating manual and referred them to the then Crime and Misconduct Commission to examine whether they lied under oath and covered their tracks about which strategies they adopted. After a five-month review, the CMC found there was no evidence the engineers colluded to mislead the floods inquiry about how Wivenhoe was managed before Brisbane and Ipswich flooded. But in line with the flood inquiry's recommendations, the CMC's probe was limited to documents the engineers prepared about their actions and their oral testimony to the inquiry. It did not look at whether their management of the dam's gates during the flood crisis could amount to a criminal offence or official misconduct. More than 78 per cent of Queensland was declared a disaster zone and more than 2.5 million people were affected during the floods from December 2010 to January 2011. SLOAN VALVE: Aug. 25 Hearing Set for $18MM Flushmate Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a hearing has been set for final approval of an $18 million class action settlement to compensate owners of Flushmate toilets containing a flaw that has caused more than 300 of the devices to explode. The Aug. 25 hearing in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will bring hundreds of thousands of potential class members closer to receiving at least $50 each to make up for the trouble their toilets caused them. Since the Consumer Product Safety Commission declared the toilets defective in 2012, more than 2.4 million Series 503 Flushmate III Pressure-Assist Flushing Systems have been recalled. That year, the commission said it had received 304 reports of toilet-tank explosions and 14 reports of impact or laceration injuries. The flawed mechanism involves a sealed plastic vessel that sits inside the toilet tank. Unlike ordinary commodes, which use gravity to flush the water out, the Flushmate system compresses and pressurizes air inside the vessel which, when the toilet is flushed, releases the air, which then forces water into the bowl, which then "pushes" the waste out. The system was touted as a water saver that was more effective than traditional johns, and was sold as a "premium" product that added about $100 to the cost of toilet, according to the complaint in United Desert Charities v. Sloan Valve Co. The problem was, according to the complaint, that the pressure in the vessels proved too strong for seams which, when they burst, propelled the forced air at a velocity so strong it could lift the lid off the toilets' tanks, shattering them and often causing collateral bathroom damage. Sloan Valve Co., the parent company of Flushmate products, offered a repair kit to toilet owners who wanted to preclude such an explosion, but refused to pay the cost of installation, according to the complaint. That didn't sit well with United Desert Charities, a Palmdale, Calif., nonprofit that owned seven toilets with the Flushmate pressure system. In 2012, the organization sued Sloan and toilet manufacturer American Standard Brands, alleging the repair kits don't repair the flaw and cannot even be installed in many toilets. The complaint contended that the defendants failed to properly design and test the Flushmate system, and asked for actual and punitive damages, as well as restitution. According to settlement documents filed on June 30, the defendants will pay for unreimbursed out-of-pocket repair and replacement costs as well as property damage. Lead plaintiffs' attorney is David Birka-White -- dbw@birka-white.com -- of Birka-White Law Offices. STAAR SURGICAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on July 8 disclosed has filed a class action lawsuit against STAAR Surgical Company and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 14-cv-05263, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased STAAR securities between February 27, 2013 and June 30, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased STAAR securities during the Class Period, you have until September 8, 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. STAAR designs, develops, manufactures and sells implantable lenses for the eye and delivery systems used to deliver lenses into the eye. The Company purports to be the leading maker of lenses used worldwide in corrective or "refractive" surgery, and also makes lenses for use in surgery that treats cataracts. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company's Monrovia Facility: (i) lacked adequate methodologies and facilities for the manufacture, packing, storage and installation of the Company's implantable lenses; (ii) lacked adequate procedures for documenting complaints, sterility testing, and maintaining required records; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Monrovia Facility was not in conformity with current good manufacturing practice requirements at all relevant times. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") publicly released a Warning Letter, dated May 21, 2014, concerning an inspection of STAAR's Monrovia Facility which took place from February 10, 2014 to March 21, 2014. The FDA letter noted several regulatory violations at the facility and stated that, among other things, "the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for" manufacture, packing, storage or installation of the Company's implantable lenses are "not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice requirements." The FDA further advised STAAR that "failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action being initiated by the FDA without further notice." On this news, STAAR shares declined $1.89, or nearly 11.25%, to close at $14.91 on July 1, 2014. 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. STAGE 3: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Stage 3 Separation, LLC, Case No. 0:14-cv-61542 (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Stage 3 Separation, LLC, provides solids control services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A. 5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: (305) 403-2000 Facsimile: (305) 459-3964 E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com STUDENT MAID: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shaina Anderson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Student Maid, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00118 (N.D. Fla. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Student Maid, Inc., is a Florida corporation which provided cleaning services to customers, located in Alachua County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew William Birk, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATHEW BIRK 309 NE 1st St. Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 244-2069 Facsimile: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com TAMKO BUILDING: Faces Class Action Over Defective Shingles ---------------------------------------------------------- Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers, along with co-counsel, Birka-White Law Offices; Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP; and Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., have filed a class action lawsuit against Tamko Building Products Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division (Case 2:14-at-00847). The lawsuit, which was filed on July 3, 2014, was filed on behalf of Robert and Linda Hoekman and all others similarly situated who purchased the shingles. It is alleged that Tamko shingles are defective and prone to early failure. In Hoekman's case, according to the Class Action Complaint, the claimants compared Tamko's shingles to competitors and decided to purchase Tamko shingles based on Tamko's advertising and marketing materials, specifically that the shingles would be free from defects for 50 years. In August 2013, the Hoekmans learned that their shingles were severely cracking, blistering, and prematurely failing, and that parts of their roof were suffering from significant granule loss. They contacted Tamko and received a Warranty Claim Form to complete and return with photographs and other supporting documents. They returned these documents to Tamko on September 13, 2013 and, on or about October 10, 2013, they received a letter from Tamko with a "Tamko Warranty Claim Settlement Work Sheet" and a Material Certificate prorated for 40 squares of the same defective Tamko Heritage Shingle; labor costs were excluded. It was only when the Hoekmans contacted Tamko in August 2013 that they first became aware of Tamko's Limited Warranty and other limitations. According to the complaint, Tamko shingles do not perform as advertised and are not compliant, despite being marketed as being durable, reliable, and compliant with ASTM D3462 standards appropriate for use in homes and other structures. The plaintiffs also allege negligence/negligent design and unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Act (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Tamko Building Products also assured its customers that the products would be defect-free for at least 50 years; however, the Plaintiffs allege that the shingles do not conform to Tamko Building Products warranties and representations. According to the complaint, the Tamko shingles allegedly contain a defect that causes the following problems: -- Blistering -- Cracking -- Early granule loss -- Increased moisture absorption -- Wind loss -- Reduced life expectancy Also, according to the lawsuit, there is a specific defect in the design and manufacture of Tamko's shingles that permits blisters and cracks to occur. Tamko designed the shingles to be manufactured with less than the required amount of asphalt, and in such a way that the design permits moisture to intrude, which creates a gas bubble that leads to blistering and cracking. The defects in the shingles allegedly result in damage to the building components of the structures on which they were installed and damage property within those structures. It is also alleged that Tamko continued to market and sell the shingles and make false representations and warranties despite learning that the shingles are defective. Tamko also markets and represents that its Shingles "offer the longest up-front protection available," according to the lawsuit. Tamko tiles are unfit for their intended use and the defects are so severe that consumers must repair or replace their shingles sooner than reasonably expected and the product is neither durable nor suitable for use as a building product when compared to other roofing products, according to the allegations. Had the Plaintiffs known that Tamko's Limited Warranty included the limitations it contains, such as an arbitration clause, the Plaintiffs would not have had the Tamko shingles installed at their home, according to the lawsuit's allegations. Parker Waichman LLP continues to offer free lawsuit consultations to consumers who have purchased Tamko Business Products shingles as described in the lawsuit. For more information, please visit the firm's Tamko Shingles Class Action Lawsuit page at yourlawyer.com. Free case evaluations are also available by calling 1(800) LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636). THOMAS M. COOLEY: 6th Cir. Says School Failed to Prove Malice ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the dismissal of dueling defamation claims between a New York firm and a Michigan school could signal a coda to nationwide litigation over alleged inflation of the salary expectations for law school graduates. Based in Lansing, Mich., Thomas M. Cooley Law School has been battling the Manhattan-based firm formerly known as Kurzon Strauss for the past three years over allegations that it lured students by painting rosy prospects of their future careers. Cooley defended its reputation by lobbing defamation claims against its accusers and received a countersuit in return. On July 2, 2014, the 6th Circuit found that the school failed to prove "actual malice" by the Manhattan firm, now known as Kurzon LLP. A week earlier, a Manhattan federal judge booted Kurzon's countersuit on standing grounds, in an opinion that described the origins of the sprawling litigation. David Anziska, a lawyer formerly with the New York-based firm Kurzon Strauss, began three years ago to search for signs of fraud in how law schools across the country promote themselves to prospective students. Over the course of his investigation, Anziska posted a statement on the blog JD Underground calling Cooley one of the "worst offenders" of postgraduation data manipulation. Anziska also noted "reports" that Cooley students "are defaulting on loans at an astounding 41 percent," the opinion states. Although his employer insisted that it did not know about this blog post and posted a retraction in June 2011, Cooley sued the firm, its partner Jesse Strauss and Anziska in Michigan state court for defamation and other counts. The school also went after four anonymous bloggers, including a former student behind the site "The Thomas Cooley Law Scam" in July. The next month, Kurzon alleged in a Michigan federal complaint that Cooley committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation and deceptive business practices regarding its postgraduate employment data. New York Law School faced a $200 million lawsuit alleging similar behavior that same week. Cooley's president Don LeDuc reacted by posting a private message on the school's password-protected intranet: "We believe these particular defendants have crossed the line both legally and ethically, calling us criminals who deceive our students and steal their tuition money, and ascribing to us fraudulent student loan activities and default rates," LeDuc wrote, according to the ruling. While LeDuc said the message was intended for students and staff, Kurzon claimed that LeDuc's statement defamed them to the New York bar and others. Virtually all of these cases now have been tossed. Cooley's general counsel James Thelan commented in an e-mail that spate of "unsuccessful class action lawsuits" were "unfortunate and misguided." "We can't speak for other law schools, but Cooley takes great pride in the diversity of solid, professional employment that its graduates find on the strength of the law degree they earn here," he wrote. Meanwhile, the failed lawsuits may indirectly have inspired reform. The American Bar Association now "requires law schools to give more meaningful and transparent statistics regarding post-graduate employment rates," attorney Jeffrey Kurzon noted in an e-mail. Thelan countered that this "more detailed breakdown of postgraduation employment data" is "not any different than the data that we've always been willing to provide our students, prospective students, and applicants on request." Cooley is "pleased to have these matters moving to final resolution," he added. Kurzon, for his part, indicated that his firm is "reviewing our options" regarding the dismissed defamation suit. The case is Kurzon LLP v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, et al., Case No. 12CV8352-LTS-RLE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. TOTAL BUILDING: Faces "Perkins" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher R. Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Total Building Maintenance Inc., Monica Y. Rios and Neil Chopra, Case No. No. 3:14-cv-02398 (N.D. Tex., July 3, 2014), unpaid regular wages due, as well as overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Total Building Maintenance Inc., employs janitors to clean commercial offices and buildings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcie J. Schanfish, Esq. MASSENGILL SCHANFISH, PLLC PO Box 217 Ennis, TX 75120 Telephone: (972) 878-9105 Facsimile: (972) 878-0554 E-mail: marcie@mslegalgroup.com UNITED BUILDING: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dominico Lopez v. United Building Maintenance Associates, Inc. and Sharad Madison, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05056 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. United Building Maintenance Associates, Inc. is in the commercial cleaning and maintenance business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffee, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Lawrence Office Park 168 Franklin Corner Road Bldg. 2, Suite 220 Lawrenceville, NY 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffef@jkffeGlenn.com UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit in Minn. Over ERISA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERISAclaim.com on July 7 disclosed that on June 23, 2014, UnitedHealthcare (UHC) was sued by a new provider class-action in its overpayment recoupment and offset practice for alleged ERISA violations and fiduciary fraud. The new ERISA class-action suit filed in a federal court in Minnesota alleges that UHC has been withholding or offsetting new payments in part or in whole from the providers when the patients and the plan sponsors were misinformed as if the payments were made to the providers, and also alleges that UHC has never complied with ERISA claims regulation when requesting for the alleged overpayment and offsetting new payments from other patients. The new putative class on behalf of all similarly situated providers is seeking for ERISA benefits payments due, injunctive and declaratory relief, and ERISA notice and appeal rights. On July 4, 2014, ERISAclaim.com announced a serious of new healthcare executive brainstorming programs to assess and demystify the new ERISA overpayment recoupment and offset class-action, because the No. 1 health care claim denials today in USA have been the payer overpayment recoupment and offset practice, without any ERISA compliance, for several years in the past for all or certain types of claims, potentially resulting in inevitable provider bankruptcy and subsequent patient bankruptcy, according to Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, a national expert on ERISA compliance and appeals. The court case info: Peterson, D. C, et al v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al, U.S. District Court U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN), Civil Docket For Case #: 0:14-cv-02101-PAM-SER, Filed 06/23/14. Significantly, this ERISA putative provider class-action for the "Offset Class" was filed in the wake of and in accordance with a similar provider class-action filed recently in New Jersey for the "Recoupment Class": Case Info: Premier Health Center, P.C., et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, et al., Case#: 2:11-cv-00425-ES-SCM, Filed 08/01/13, United States District Court for The District of New Jersey. A copy of the Court Order is available at http://is.gd/dm2L9C In the last year court decision in Premier Health Center, P.C., et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, et al., the court ruled against UHC in its overpayment recoupment practice: "To be sure, as previously discussed, United's recoupment procedures violate three specific ERISA regulations across the class." according to the court document. "In 2011, United recovered approximately $430 million in overpayments to providers. 58% of the $430 million was recovered as a result of providers' voluntarily sending a check to United, while 42% was recovered through offsets", according to the court document. "However, they all violate ERISA in three respects. First, they fail to provide "[a] description of the plan's review procedures and the time limits applicable to such procedures, including a statement of the claimant's right to bring acivil action under section 502(a) of [ERISA] following an adverse benefit determination on review." 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2650.503-1(g)(1)(iv).25 Second, they fail to indicate that the provider, "upon request and free of charge, [will have] reasonable access to, and copies of, all documents, records, and other information relevant to the" overpayment determination. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2650.503-1(h)(2)(ii). Third, they fail to "[p]rovide claimants at least 180 days following receipt of a notification of an adverse benefit determination within which to appeal the determination." 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2650.503-1(h)(3)(i)," according to the court document. However, in the provider class-action in Minnesota, healthcare providers alleged additional ERISA violations by UnitedHhealthcare Group for withholding and offsetting newly adjudicated claim payments from one patient to satisfy another alleged overpayment in the past from other unidentified patients in complete ERISA violations, and even worse, by misrepresenting to the patients and the plan sponsors on patient EOB's that "payment made to provider", when in truth and in fact no such payment was ever made to the providers, according to the Court Complaint. In particular, the plaintiff Lutz Surgical Partners alleged the following: "For example, . . . Instead, United identified a different United Insured covered by a different United Plan who had been treated by Lutz on December 16, 2012. According to the PEOB, United caused that United Plan to pay Lutz $19,460.00 for this treatment which was now characterized by United as the "ORIGINAL OVERPAYMENT AMOUNT." The PEOB then explained that the entire amount owed to Lutz for the services provided to the June 12, 2013 patient ($2,700.00) was being unilaterally offset against the prior alleged overpayment relating to the December 16, 2012 patient ($19,460.00), with the added explanation that "THIS REPRESENTS PREVIOUS BENEFITS THAT WERE PAID IN ERROR." United therefore reported that the "TOTAL PAID TO THE PROVIDER" for services rendered to the June 12, 2013 patient was $0.00. In the "REMARKS" section of the PEOB, United stated: "The amount payable for this Explanation of Benefits has been used to reduce an overpayment made on the given claim(s). Please adjust your patient account balance accordingly." according to the court document. To find out more about PPACA Claims and Appeals Compliance Services from ERISAclaim.com: http://www.erisaclaim.com/products.htm Located in a Chicago suburb in Illinois, for over 15 years, ERISAclaim.com is the only ERISA & PPACA consulting, publishing and website resource for healthcare providers in the country. ERISAclaim.com offers free webinars, basic and advanced educational seminars and on-site claims specialist certification programs for doctors, hospitals and commercial companies, as well as numerous pending national ERISA class action litigation support. Dr. Jin Zhou is regarded as the industry "Godfather of ERISA claims" for healthcare providers. For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237. VALEANT PHARMA: Recalls About 850,000 Tubes of Muro Eye Ointment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Loftus, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.'s Bausch & Lomb unit has recalled about 850,000 tubes of an eye-care ointment because some tubes contained tiny crystal particles that could injure the cornea. Bausch & Lomb said June 27 it believed the crystal particles formed when the tubes of Muro 128 ointment were exposed to freezing temperatures during shipments last winter. The problem could cause injury to the cornea, leading to eye irritation and abrasions, Bausch & Lomb said in a recall notice it sent to retailers and distributors May 30, which instructed them to return the product. The recall wasn't widely publicized; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted some details of the recall on its website. The over-the-counter ointment is typically used as a nighttime treatment for corneal edema, or swelling of the outermost layer of the eye. Users are supposed to apply a small amount to the inside of the eyelid every three to four hours or as directed by a doctor. Bausch & Lomb said it initiated the voluntary recall in the interest of patient safety after an increase in the number of complaints it received from users about a "gritty, sandlike feeling" in the eye after use of the product. The recall affects tubes of Muro 128 distributed in the U.S., Canada and Hong Kong but not in other regions, said a Bausch & Lomb spokeswoman. The company investigated and didn't find any problems with its manufacturing process, the spokeswoman said. Instead, Bausch & Lomb blamed the "extreme weather conditions" of winter, saying the affected products may have been exposed to freezing temperatures after leaving company-owned facilities. Freezing temperatures can cause the crystal formations in the salt-based product, the spokeswoman said; boxes containing the tubes carry a "do not freeze" label. Several people have posted comments about the recall on Bausch & Lomb's Facebook page in recent weeks. One woman said it felt like "shards of glass" were in her eyes after using the product. Another complained that Bausch & Lomb didn't sufficiently alert consumers to the recall. Bausch & Lomb said the recall notice was only sent to wholesalers, retailers and eye-care providers, not to consumers, after discussions with the FDA. The FDA assigned a "Class II" status to the recall, which the agency reserves for products that could cause temporary or reversible problems, or where the risk of serious health problems is remote. The recalled lots contained expiration dates ranging from June 2014 to October 2016. VAPOR PASSION: Faces "Camejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Claudio Ortega Camejo and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Vapor Passion Corp., Yasania Bravo, Carlos Llamos, Case No. 1:14-cv-22485 (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Vapor Passion Corp., manufactures E-cigarettes. The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Markel, Esq. THE MARKEL LAW FIRM 3191 Grand Ave., #1531 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 458-1282 Facsimile: (800) 407-1718 E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com VOXX INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 8 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of VOXX International Corporation common stock between May 15, 2013 and May 14, 2014, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July 8, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/voxx/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges VOXX and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act. VOXX, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a manufacturer and distributor in the automotive, premium audio, and consumer accessories industries in the United States and internationally. The Company operates in three different segments: (a) Automotive, which includes rear seat entertainment systems, satellite radio products, remote start systems, digital TV tuners, mobile antennas, and other multi-media applications. Some of the Company's brands in this segment include Jensen(R), Advent(R), Audiovox(R), Mac Audio(R), Code Alarm(R), InVision(R), and Hirschmann; (b) Premium Audio, which includes home theater systems, high-end loudspeakers, outdoor speakers, sound bars, sound bases and headphones. Some of the Company's brands in this segment include Klipsch(R), Jamo(R), Energy(R), Heco(R) and Magnat(R); and (c) Consumer Accessories, which includes universal remote controls, reception products, indoor Bluetooth speakers, outdoor iPod docks, and other connectivity and charging applications. Some of the Company's brands in this segment include RCA, Acoustic Research, Terk(R), Audiovox(R), Schwaiger(R) and Oehlbach(R). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, VOXX issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects and failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing declining headphone sales in its Premium Audio segment; (ii) that the Company was experiencing a greater than expected sales decline in its Consumer Accessories segment; (iii) that the Company failed to timely record losses for its Hirschmann, Invision and Klipsch acquisitions, trademarks of various brands, and its Technuity business, among other things, thereby materially overstating the Company's financial condition and misstating the Company's financial results and financial statements; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's financial performance and outlook during the Class Period. On January 9, 2014, the Company held a conference call with analysts and investors. With regard to the Company's outlook for fiscal 2014, Defendants lowered their sales guidance from $840 million to $825-$830 million, raised their EBITDA guidance from $62 million to $65 million, and reiterated their gross margin guidance of 28.8%. In reaction to these announcements, the price of VOXX common stock fell $2.99 per share, or 18%, to close at $14.00 per share, on heavy trading volume. On May 14, 2014, after the markets closed, VOXX announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2014, the period ending February 28, 2014. For the year, the Company reported net sales of $809.7 million, gross margin of 28.4%, and EBITDA of $54.5 (minus any impairment charges) -- all below the Company's stated guidance. Moreover, the Company reported an impairment charge of $57.6 million related to its Hirschmann, Invision and Klipsch acquisitions, trademarks of various brands, and its Technuity business, among other things. In reaction to these announcements, the price of VOXX common stock fell $2.56 per share, or 25%, to close at $7.51 per share, on heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of VOXX common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With more than 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action. WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Escrow Mismanagement Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge dismissed a class action accusing Wells Fargo Bank NA of intentionally setting up escrow accounts so that consumers would incur large negative escrow balances, finding the claims are preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act. U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz on July 3 granted Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss Michelle Hayes' complaint alleging it violated California's Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act by failing to maintain plaintiffs' escrow accounts and representing that the accounts have benefits they do not have, according to the order. "The court finds that HOLA preemption applies to the case at bar," the order said. Ms. Hayes had argued that Wells Fargo improperly calculated the amounts that consumers would pay into their escrow accounts so that they would accumulate large negative balances, be charged late fees and penalties, and potentially face foreclosure proceedings. Her proposed class action sought to represent all Wells Fargo consumers in the U.S. for whom Wells Fargo failed to conduct an initial escrow account analysis, the order said. In its October 2013 motion to dismiss, Wells Fargo argued that Ms. Hayes' claims are preempted by HOLA and that California's competition statute does not apply to mortgage loans and escrow accounts, according to the order. Ms. Hayes voluntarily dismissed her CLRA claim but defended her UCL claim after the motion to dismiss, arguing that Wells Fargo is not entitled to HOLA protections because it's not a federal savings association, the order said. Citing another California federal court decision from April and a Ninth Circuit finding, Judge Lorenz dismissed the suit with prejudice, finding that HOLA preemptions apply to Wells Fargo and the UCL is a type of state law that is preempted by the federal HOLA. "Hayes's argument is contradicted by Ninth Circuit authority," the order said. Ms. Hayes is represented by Brian J. Lawler of Pilot Law PC and Joseph J. Siprut and Aleksandra M.S. Vold of Siprut PC. Wells Fargo is represented by Mark T. Flewelling and Yaw-Jiun Wu of Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen Campbell & Trytten LLP and Regina J. McClendon -- rmcclendon@lockelord.com -- and Jason L. Sanders -- jsanders@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP. The case is Hayes v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, case number 3:13-cv- 01707, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. WHOLE FOODS: Removed "Rivera" Suit to S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------- Alberto Rivera, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05025 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2014), gives notice that this action is to be removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., is an American supermarket. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Lipsky, Esq. BRONSON LIPSKY LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Facsimile: (212) 444-1030 E-mail: dl@bronsonlipsky.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com * Cost of Top 10 Most Expensive Settlements of 2013 Totals $638MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Dimarco, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that privately initiated discrimination lawsuits are not uncommon in the United States, and while they were down year-over-year, the number of filings in 2013 was still significant and costly for businesses. According to Seyferth Shaw LLP's 2014 Workplace Class Action Litigation Report there were 12,311 discrimination class action lawsuits filed in 2013, dipping from 14,260 in 2012. As a result of the astronomical costs and potential bad press associated with litigation, many of these cases were settled out of court. And in 2013, the cost of the 10 most expensive settlements totaled over $638 million. With money like that on the line, the roster is a great indicator of what companies will want to ensure their policies prevent against. * Hanna Law Firm Sued Over Shoddy Credit-Card Collection Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Horwitz, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued a major debt collection law firm on July 14, alleging it is a "mill" that produces shoddy, mass-produced credit-card collection lawsuits. The bureau's claim, filed in federal court in Atlanta, states that Frederick J. Hanna & Associates has filed hundreds of thousands of lawsuits on behalf of banks including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Capital One and Discover without doing even basic checks to determine whether the people they sued actually owed debts. "The Hanna firm relies on deception and faulty evidence to drag consumers to court and collect millions," the bureau's director, Richard Cordray, said in a statement. "We believe they are taking advantage of consumers' lack of legal expertise to intimidate them into paying debts they may not even owe." Though Hanna & Associates' lawsuits have all the trappings of formal litigation, the bureau alleges, the firm is really a bulk debt-collection agency masquerading as a law firm. Hanna & Associates attorneys were told not to spend more than one minute reviewing most cases before they were filed, the bureau claims, and in Georgia, one Hanna & Associates attorney signed off on 138,000 lawsuits over two years, a pace that the bureau declared incompatible with legitimate legal work. The bureau's suit seeks to force Hanna & Associates and its owners to change its collection practices, pay restitution to consumers and disgorge "ill-gotten revenues." In response to the suit, the law firm issued a statement declaring that "we strongly deny the allegations of the complaint and, moreover, the overall characterization of our law firm." Hanna "completely cooperated" with the bureau's investigation, the firm said, "and we are obviously disappointed by the events." The bureau's suit may signal additional actions against credit card collections law firms, which file millions of lawsuits a year. Consumer advocates and plaintiff's attorneys have long alleged that the debt collection industry is rife with misconduct. "The current business model is of filing shoddy paperwork and relying on courts to rubber-stamp it," said Peter Holland, a professor at the University of Maryland's law school who runs its consumer debt clinic. "The CFPB looked at just one law firm in just one state." The suit against Hanna & Associates may also have ramifications for the banks the law firm serves. Mass litigation has long been a cornerstone of major banks' collection strategies, with the banks using a handful of law firms like Hanna & Associates to file suit over billions of dollars of alleged debts since the recession. But how banks handle and collect on alleged debts has become increasingly controversial. In 2011, JPMorgan Chase was forced to largely shutter its debt litigation operation following allegations of discrepancies in internal computer systems that track debts and the "robo-signing" of legal documents en masse. Other lenders -- including Bank of America -- routinely sold tens of millions of dollars of credit card debts to collections industry buyers under contracts stating that some of the accounts might already have been paid off by consumers. In the run-up to a settlement with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency last year, JPMorgan estimated that 9 percent of the lawsuits filed on its behalf between 2008 and 2011 had errors, though the bank argued that the mistakes were mostly not serious. Which entities will end up bearing the bulk of regulators' scrutiny for such sloppiness remains an open question. Banks should think about their potential liability, Mr. Holland said. "Their law-firm agents are in their name filing things that are not accurate." ********* 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 * * *