/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140724.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 24, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 146 Headlines ACCESS MEDICAL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act ADVOCATE HEALTH: Class Action Over 2013 Data Breach Pending ALING MARY'S: Recalls Sweet Buns Due to Undeclared Milk and Wheat AMECO PARADISIO: Recalls Polo Pyjamas Due to Flammable AMERICAN TRAFFIC: "Stone" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida APPLE INC: Settles E-Book Price-Fixing Suit for $450 Million APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Removed "Byrd" Class Suit to S.D. California AVCO INDUSTRIES: Faces "Carcasses" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BASS PRO: EEOC Files Hiring Discrimination Class Action BERNARD L MADOFF: Appeals Court Rejects Ponzi Scheme Appeal BOLLINGER FITNESS: Recalls Resistance Bands BOUNCEBACK INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act C MART: Recalls San Mig 3 in 1 Coffeemix Due to Undeclared Milk CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Cuisinart Electric Smoker CATAMARAN LLC: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Parker" Suit Says CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Tosses Securities Class Action CHINA XD PLASTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports CHINA XD PLASTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action CHINA XD PLASTICS: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action CHRYSLER GROUP: Sunroof Defect Class Action Can Proceed CHUANG'S COMPANY: Recalls Old Village White Coffee COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al Karawan Soft Candy Due to Undeclared Egg COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al Karawan Candy Due to Undeclared Wheat CORINTHIAN DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Palm Liver Spread CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls 2014 MY GT Fury Team & Expert Bicycles DOLLAR THRIFTY: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Toll Fees ELPIDA MEMORY: Settles DRAM Class Action for $310 Million EUROTRADE IMPORT: Recalls Podravka Luncheon Meat Due to Milk FINLEY CATERING: Faces "Pew" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FOOTWEAR IMPORTS: Recalls Phoenix Safety Footwear PH104 Stampede GABLES PIZZA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Consumers to Use Single Key in Recalled Cars GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Judge Narrows Claims in MBS Class Action GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Abido Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk HALCO LIGHTING: Recalls LED Bulbs Due to Risk of Injury HOME DEPOT: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Suit Claims HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Employee Background Checks HOME HARDWARE: Recalls GetPower Portable USB Home Charger HONDA MOTOR: Jury Awards $55.3 Mil. to Rollover Crash Victim HUDSON VALLEY: Sued over Illegal Reposition of Personal Property IMPERIAL WESTERN: Does Not Give Meal & Rest Periods, Action Says INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Ninth Circuit Affirms Investor Class Action JOHNS HOPKINS: Agrees to Settle Levy Claims for $190 Million KER MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Bartenders Minimum Wage, Suit Claims KIND LLC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over "Cane Juice" Labeling LIFE UNIFORM: Wants to Sell Rights to Class Action Recoveries MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Holley" Suit to W.D. Tennessee NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Set to Rule on O'Bannon Antitrust Suit NEUSTAR INC: Accused of Disclosing Misleading Fin'l Reports NEW YORK: DOH Sued for Failing to Provide Discontinuance Notice ONE TOUCH: "Isaac" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages PASRICHA & PATEL: Faces "Barros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PRINCESS TOURS: "Guo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Farrah" Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn. RITE AID: Faces "Zipf" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ADA ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Skil Table Saw RUST-OLEUM CORP: Falsely Marketed Paint Products, Suit Claims SEECO INC: Faces "Wallace" Suit in Eastern District of Arkansas SP AUSNET: To Contribute $378.6 Mil. Towards Settlement Fund SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages TIMOTHY D. PADGETT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act WELLS FARGO: Removed "Zanders" Suit to Southern District of Iowa * FDA Provides Ready Access to Recall Data Through API ********* ACCESS MEDICAL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose A. Ramirez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Access Medical Acquisition, Inc., Access Medical Group Of Hialeah, Inc. and Victor Lugo, Case No. 1:14-cv-22646 (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Access Medical Acquisition, Inc. is a medical insurance company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM ADVOCATE HEALTH: Class Action Over 2013 Data Breach Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Conn, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp. has now gone two for two in swatting away class-action lawsuits stemming from last summer's massive data breach involving more than 4 million of its patient records. Its legal challenges on this matter aren't over yet, however. Several other cases are pending. Kane County (Ill.) Circuit Court Judge James Murphy recently dismissed with prejudice a class-action suit in Matias Maglio et al., vs Advocate, citing the plaintiffs' lack of legal standing and failure to prove actual damages among other rationales in a three-page ruling in favor of the 10-hospital Advocate system. Advocate is based in the Chicago suburb of Downer's Grove, Ill. In May, a judge in Lake County, Ill., similarly dismissed a class- action suit there against Advocate, ruling that its plaintiffs could not claim injuries based on potential losses. Last July, burglars hit the Advocate Medical Group administrative office in Park Ridge, another Chicago suburb, walking away with four unencrypted computers with the records of 4,029,530 individuals. It was the second-largest medical records breach since the Office for Civil Rights at HHS began publicly posting the larger ones to its "wall of shame" website in 2009. In his Kane County ruling July 10, Murphy said, "Plaintiffs have not alleged that the information contained on the computers has been accessed or disseminated by the unknown third parties, or that plaintiffs have been actual victims of identity theft because of the misuses of the information." Thus, Murphy found there were "no allegations of present injury sufficient to sustain the negligence" or claims Advocate had violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Advocate was represented in the Kane County case by Theodore Kobus III -- tkobus@bakerlaw.com -- Daniel Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- and George Tzanetopoulos -- gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker Hostetler, with offices in Cleveland and Chicago. The Advocate system still faces several more legal challenges stemming from the breach, with Erica Tierney and Andris Strautin as named plaintiffs in a class-action complaint filed in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois, and Alex Lozada v. Advocate, a consolidation of 12 class-action cases filed in Chicago's Cook County Circuit Court. Jay Edelson, managing partner at Edelson P.C. in Chicago, is representing the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, along with Robert Clifford -- rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- and Shannon McNulty -- smm@cliffordlaw.com -- of the Clifford Law Offices. Of the Kane County ruling, Mr. Edelson said, "We don't think it's a terribly significant decision to our case." "The damage theory that the courts have started to accept, all flows from a federal court case in the 11th circuit with AvMED," Mr. Edelson said. The Florida health insurer had two laptop computers go missing in late 2009 along with 1.2 million customers' records. In the AvMED lawsuit, which reportedly settled for $3 million, "The theory was when you're paying money for a product or a service you expect to have part of that bargain to have the information protected. The 11th Circuit said that's right, it's what people have a right to expect." The same logic should apply to Advocate patients, he said. "They expected the hospital to comply with HIPAA and take reasonable steps to protect their information and they didn't get the full benefit of the bargain," Mr. Edelson said. ALING MARY'S: Recalls Sweet Buns Due to Undeclared Milk and Wheat ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 8, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Aling Mary's Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Possibly National, Saskatchewan, Yukon Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9027 Aling Mary's is recalling Aling Mary's brand Sweet Buns (Pandesal) from the marketplace because they contain milk and wheat which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk or wheat should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product has been sold in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Yukon, and may have been distributed in other provinces. If you have an allergy to milk or wheat, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported allergic reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 780 g. Aling Mary's Sweet Buns (Pandesal) with all codes where milk and wheat do not appear on the label AMECO PARADISIO: Recalls Polo Pyjamas Due to Flammable ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 15, 2014 Posting date: July 15, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40561 Affected products: Diana & Karine polo pyjamas The recall involves Diana & Karine 2-piece polo pyjamas for girls identified by styles 69424 (ice cream print) and 69464 (monkey on a scooter print). The sleepwear is made of 100% cotton and has CA number 32071. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that these products do not meet the flammability requirements for children's sleepwear under Canadian law. Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly, potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the child's body. For this reason, cotton is not permitted in loose- fitting sleepwear. Neither Health Canada nor Les Modes Ameco Paradisio Apparel Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this sleepwear. Approximately 3,500 units of the recalled products were sold in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold from August 2012 to June 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Sri Arunkarai Amman Apparels Tirapur India Distributor Les modes Ameco Paradisio Apparel Inc. Montreal Quebec Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sleepwear and return them to where they were purchased for a refund. AMERICAN TRAFFIC: "Stone" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Stone, et al. v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-013769 CA 20, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-22696-MGC to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Joshua Stone, Esq. RICHARD J. STONE, P.A. Two Datran Center PH 1-A 9130 S. Dadeland Blvd. Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-2080 Facsimile: (305) 670-2345 E-mail: rich@rjstonelaw.com The American Traffic Defendants are represented by: Naomi Massave Berry, Esq. Thomas Meeks, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. 100 S.E. Second St., Suite 4200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-7210 Facsimile: (305) 530-0055 E-mail: nberry@cfjblaw.com tmeeks@cfjblaw.com Defendant City of Miami Gardens, Florida, is represented by: E. Bruce Johnson, Esq. Christopher J. Stearns, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON ANSELMO MURDOCH BURKE PIPER & HOCHMAN, PA International Building, Suite 1000 2455 E Sunrise Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304-0220 Telephone: (954) 463-0100 Facsimile: (954) 463-2444 E-mail: johnson@jambg.com stearns@jambg.com APPLE INC: Settles E-Book Price-Fixing Suit for $450 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ William Peacock, Esq., writing for Findlaw.com, reports that more than a year later, Apple has finally taken a judge's advice and settled its long-running e-books price-fixing antitrust case -- pending further appeals. On the eve of the damages trial, Apple settled with the government for $450 million, $400 million of which goes to consumers. However, the settlement is conditioned on Apple not losing its appeals, appeals which could reduce the settlement to $70 million or, if Apple gets truly lucky, nothing at all. That last part seems unlikely, however. If you recall, the government had a ton of evidence, including emails from the late Steve Jobs. The evidence was so compelling that the trial judge warned Apple, on the eve of the merits trial, that it would be best to settle. Recapping the Merits Apple ran its iBooks store like its App Store: publishers and developers set their own prices, with Apple taking a cut (the agency model). Apple also included a Most Favored Nation clause in its e-book contracts with publishers, ensuring that other outlets couldn't buy books at a lesser rate. At one point, Random House protested -- Apple took their app out of the App Store in retaliation. Eventually, the agency model was forced upon Amazon and other e- book outlets. The threads of an Apple conspiracy were backed by statements and emails from Steve Jobs and the heads of the publishing companies, much like the anti-poaching class action lawsuit that is also plaguing Silicon Valley at the moment. How Big is the Settlement? Apple's chipping in $450 million, assuming that the appeals don't end in their favor. Take the $400 million earmarked for consumers, add the $166 million in settlements from the five publishers who settled long ago, and you have $566 million that is headed back to customers. A lawyer involved in the case noted that the settlement is "double the amount of their estimated damages," reports Reuters. Reuters also notes that the full $450 million is barely 1 percent of the $37.04 billion the company made in its last fiscal year. APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Removed "Byrd" Class Suit to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Byrd v. Applebee's International, Inc., et a., Case No. 37-2014-00019536-CU-MT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01697-JM-KSC to the proceeding. The case asserts personal injury claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul M. Kakuske, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704 Telephone: (213) 623-9300 Facsimile: (213) 623-9924 E-mail: paul.kakuske@dentons.com AVCO INDUSTRIES: Faces "Carcasses" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Misael Carcasses and others similarly situated v. Avco Industries, Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation and Gil Korine, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22633 (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Avco Industries, Inc. is a paper manufacturer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com BASS PRO: EEOC Files Hiring Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that when the federal government sued Bass Pro Outdoor World for hiring discrimination, it offered statistics showing a dearth of minority employees, damaging comments from the retailer's managers such as "we don't hire niggers," and asked for $300 million in potential damages. But the original complaint lacked one thing: named victims. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Springfield, Mo.-based national retailer for hiring discrimination in 2011 -- the first class action of its kind where the agency did not identify a single plaintiff up front, according to U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison, presiding over the case in Houston. By law, the EEOC doesn't have to wait for someone to come forward with a discrimination complaint. The agency can act on its own by filing a commissioner's charge, or initiating a directed investigation in age-discrimination or equal-pay cases. The Bass Pro suit raises legal questions that go to the heart of the agency's duty to seek a settlement before suing, and to the EEOC's ability to invoke two overlapping but procedurally distinct statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case also spotlights the EEOC's practical difficulty in finding victims of hiring discrimination -- the top enforcement priority under the agency's new strategic plan. "A lot of people don't know why they're not hired," EEOC assistant general counsel Jerome Scanlan told The National Law Journal. "We feel we have an important role to play here." To build a case, the EEOC may rely in part on statistical evidence culled from reports that all employers with 100 or more workers (and federal contractors with 50 or more) must file annually with the agency, Mr. Scanlan said. The reports show the sex and race or ethnicity of workers by job category. Soliciting Plaintiffs The agency on its website is soliciting plaintiffs for the Bass Pro case and three other pending class actions: against Mavis Discount Tire and Performance Food Group Inc. for allegedly failing to hire qualified women and against Texas Roadhouse Inc. restaurants for alleged age discrimination in hiring. "We are looking for people who may have been affected by the unlawful discrimination alleged in these suits," the agency said. In the Texas Roadhouse case, filed in U.S. district court in Massachusetts nine days after Bass Pro, the EEOC also initially failed to identify any plaintiffs by name. It alleged instead that only 1.9 percent of "front of the house" employees -- hostesses, servers, bartenders -- at the Kentucky-based steakhouse chain were older than 40. "This figure is well below the protected age group's representation in the general population of defendants' locations," the complaint said. But as the Bass Pro case shows, filing a class action without first naming any so-called "aggrieved individuals" can open the agency to new avenues of attack. The case began in February 2007, when then-Commissioner Stuart Ishi-maru charged the 15,000-employee, privately held retailer with failing to recruit or hire black and Hispanic employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin or religion. Specializing in fishing, hunting and other outdoor sporting gear, the Bass Pro stores are filled with stuffed bears, moose, deer and boars. Along with hundreds of fishing poles, walls of rifles and dozens of bows, there are doormats with slogans like "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again!" and camouflage everything -- from baby booties to easy chair recliners. For nearly four years, the EEOC investigated Bass Pro and then, as required by Title VII, attempted to settle, or conciliate, the case. The process was distinguished by "marked acrimony," Judge Ellison wrote in an order earlier this year. "The court cannot say why this was or where things went wrong," he wrote. "It now seems clear both sides could have engaged more skillfully and respectfully." Represented by a team from King & Spalding led by Atlanta partner Michael Johnston, Bass complained that the EEOC refused to identify potential plaintiffs before filing suit and "never provided Bass Pro with the most basic information concerning the claim of any aggrieved individual (such as the person's name, the position sought, any circumstances suggesting discrimination and the basis for any alleged emotional harm), let alone an ability to respond to such claim or attempt to resolve it through conciliation." Mr. Johnston declined to comment. A Bass Pro spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment. Using statistical evidence, the EEOC said Bass Pro had a "shortfall" of 1,000 black and Hispanic hires at its roughly 60 stores around the country. The agency wanted $30 million to settle, arguing that Bass Pro could be on the hook for $300 million if the case went to trial -- a maximum penalty of $300,000 for each currently unidentified person who would have been hired but for the discrimination. Bass counteroffered to pay $1.7 million, declaring that it wouldn't up its offer without more information about the claims. With negotiations at an impasse, the EEOC sued Bass Pro in September 2011. The agency alleged in its nine-page complaint that the company had engaged in "a pattern or practice of unlawfully failing to hire black and Hispanic applicants for positions in its retail stores nationwide." It also alleged retaliation and record-keeping violations. The EEOC's Mr. Scanlan said the agency knew of specific hiring discrimination victims but didn't identify them because "we didn't think we were required to under federal pleading standards," Scanlan said." It was a choice." The judge in 2012 dismissed much of the complaint "because EEOC failed to allege even one plaintiff with any particularity." Still, Judge Ellison allowed the agency to try again. The EEOC responded in July 2012 by filing a 247-page amended complaint naming about 200 plaintiffs, but Bass Pro continues to attack the agency for failing to adequately identify the class members. Enforcement Scope Last month, the company asked Judge Ellison to toss the heart of the case on the ground that the EEOC did not try to settle in good faith. Bass Pro has been left to "sift through a million application files, guess which applicants were black or Hispanic, and then guess which of those the EEOC contends were denied a job because of intentional discrimination," Mr. Johnston wrote. The agency countered that Bass Pro has destroyed evidence, refused to provide names of at least 50 employees who complained of discrimination and "imposed unreasonable time limitations" on depositions. Judge Ellison's ruling is pending. The future of the case in large part will turn on what Title VII provisions the EEOC is able to invoke. The agency cites both Section 706, which permits it to sue on behalf of flesh-and-blood discrimination victims, and Section 707, which empowers it to go after businesses engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination. Judge Ellison has approved the EEOC's Section 707 claims -- but only back pay and injunctive relief are available under that provision, and there's no trial by jury. Judge Ellison ruled that the EEOC "cannot bring a hybrid pattern-or-practice claim that melds the respective frameworks." In a pending motion, the agency has asked him to reconsider. "There is no hybridization," it argued. "The issue is whether those two claims, which involve precisely the same facts, can be proved the same way, or have to be proved differently and separately, and more than once." BERNARD L MADOFF: Appeals Court Rejects Ponzi Scheme Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed an appeal involving the settlement of class action securities claims related to the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. Circuit Judges Dennis G. Jacobs, Barrington D. Parker and Denny Chin voted in the majority, with Parker authoring the opinion. "This appeal requires us once again to grapple with the aftermath of the Ponzi scheme run by Bernard L. Madoff," the June 26 opinion states. "Defendants-Appellants PricewaterhouseCoopers and Citco2 . . . seek to overturn a partial final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York . . . approving the settlement of certain putative class action claims." The settled claims were brought by the 118 plaintiffs, who were individual and institutional investors in so-called Madoff feeder funds managed by the Fairfield Greenwich Group, according to the opinion. "The claims were brought against the group as well as its directors and officers," the opinion states. "The non-settling defendants challenge one particular provision in the settlement agreement that provides that investors who file claims under the settlement submit to the district court's jurisdiction for the sole purpose of participating in the settlement and not for any other purpose." The non-settling defendants contend that the district court erred in approving this provision because district courts cannot permit litigants to agree to insulate themselves from personal jurisdiction if it would otherwise be created as a result of the settlement, according to the opinion. "In response, the investor plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the non-settling defendants lack standing to lodge this objection," the opinion states. "The non-settling defendants counter that they have standing because the provision in question prejudices their rights to assert that participation in the settlement should bar or limit investor claims against them in other litigation. Because we conclude that the non-settling defendants do not have standing to challenge the settlement, we dismiss the appeal." The plaintiffs invested money in funds sponsored and managed by the defendants, which, in turn, invested substantially all of their assets with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. "After discovering that their investments were lost as a result of Madoff's fraudulent scheme, investor plaintiffs brought a putative class action asserting federal securities and state common law claims against the Fairfield Greenwich defendants, their outside public accountants, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Citco and GlobeOp Financial Services LLC, which provided various professional services to the funds," the opinion states. "In addition to restitution of the $5 billion investor plaintiffs alleged that they, as a class lost, as a result of Madoff's fraudulent scheme, the complaint sought consequential and punitive damages as well as disgorgement of profits purportedly obtained by the defendants." Following the filing of the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, the putative class representatives were approached by several putative settlement class members who expressed concern that, as foreign individuals and entities, participation in the settlement class could subject them to clawback actions in United States courts by Irving Picard, the SIPC Trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Kenneth Krys, the court- appointed Liquidator of Fairfield Sentry Ltd., seeking to recover monies they may have directly or indirectly received through the Fairfield Greenwich Group from Madoff. "In response to these concerns, on the eve of the preliminary approval hearing, the settling parties submitted an amended proposed order purporting to limit the district court's jurisdiction over settlement class members," the opinion states. The preliminary approval order was amended and, at the hearing, the non-settling defendants objected to the amended language on the ground that class members who submitted to the court's jurisdiction in order to accept the terms of the settlement could not, at the same time, be permitted to limit the legal consequences of doing so. The non-settling defendants contended that they were currently facing claims in litigation in the Netherlands and were entitled to argue that any entity that participated in the New York settlement could not pursue claims in any other jurisdiction. The district court overruled the objections and approved the amended preliminary settlement order, according to the opinion. The district court entered the final order approving the settlement and entering partial final judgment with respect to investor plaintiffs' claims against the Fairfield Greenwich defendants. This appeal followed. "In reaching this result, we join our sister courts in holding that a settlement which does not prevent the later assertion of a non-settling party's claims . . . does not cause the non-settling party 'formal' legal prejudice," the opinion states. "For these reasons, we conclude that the non-settling defendants do not have standing to object to the settlement," the opinion states. "In view of this conclusion, we decline to address the remaining issues argued on appeal." The 118 plaintiffs in the suit include Jitendra Bhatia, Kishanchand Bhatia, Jayshree Bhatia, Mandakini Gajaria, Abn Amro Life S.A., Bahia Del Rio S.A., Bevington Management, Ltd., Calwell Investment S.A., Diamond Hills Inc. and Hedge Strategy Fund LLC. The 69 defendants in the suit include Corina Noel Piedrahita, Walter M. Noel Jr., Andres Piedrahita, Jeffrey Tucker, Amit Vigayvergia, Fairfield Heathcliff Capital LLC, Yanko Dellaw Schiava, Philip Toub, Lourdes Barreneche and Cornelis Boele. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case number: 13-1642- cv BOLLINGER FITNESS: Recalls Resistance Bands ------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 15, 2014 Posting date: July 15, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40477 Affected products: Fitness Resistance Bands The recall involves Bollinger Fitness Classic and Soft Tech resistance bands with door attachment. Resistance bands with the names Classic Heavy, Classic Medium, Soft Tech Xtreme, Soft Tech Heavy and Soft-Tech Medium are included in this recall. The 1.2 metre (4 foot) long resistance bands are made of gray rubber with gray, red, black or blue accents and have black foam handles and a door attachment. A 13 centimetre (5-inch) long strap of nylon webbing is looped onto the band with a plastic ball attached or encased that serves as a door anchor. The Bollinger Fitness logo appears on the handles. The model number can be found on the product's packaging; model numbers 5771, 5772, 5773, 5774 and 5775 are included in this recall. A black plastic ball attached to the resistance band's door anchor can unexpectedly release and strike the user, posing an injury hazard to consumers. Bollinger has received one report of an injury. Neither Health Canada nor Bollinger has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada related to the use of these products. A total of 3,037 recalled products were sold into Canada at Winners, Marshalls and Homesense locations across Canada. Approximately 60,000 were sold in the United States. The recalled products were manufactured in China and Taiwan and sold from May 2013 to June 2014 in Canada and from July 2012 to March 2014 in the United States. Companies: Distributor Bollinger Fitness, a division of Alliance Sports Group L.P. Grand Prairie Texas United States Importer Winners Merchants International LP Mississauga Ontario Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the door attachment and contact Bollinger Fitness to get instructions on how to receive a free replacement door attachment, including free shipping. BOUNCEBACK INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Wodena Cavnar, Rosaline Terrill and Linda Parks, on their own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bounceback Inc., a Missouri corporation, Stone Fence Holdings Inc., Gale Krieg and Does 1 - 20, Case No. 2:14-cv-00235-RMP (E.D. Wash., July 18, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Erika L. Nusser, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com enusser@tmdwlaw.com C MART: Recalls San Mig 3 in 1 Coffeemix Due to Undeclared Milk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: C Mart Enterprises Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail The food recall warning issued on July 4, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Industry is recalling San Mig brand 3 in 1 Coffeemix from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Cuisinart Electric Smoker ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 18, 2014 Posting date: July 18, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Appliances Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Improper Safety Mechanisms, Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40607 Affected products: Cuisinart Electric Smoker The voluntary recall involves specific units of the Cuisinart electric smoker identified by product number 85-1153, which have the following batch codes inscribed on them: 15013, 15213, 50214, 51314, 41514, 51814, 51614 and 22014. The electric smokers are black with the name "Cuisinart" printed on the stainless steel door. The product has five cooking racks and a thermostat to control the temperature. The affected Cuisinart electric smokers are being recalled as a precautionary measure due to safety concerns that gas may build up within the unit causing the door on the smoker to open while the unit is in use. Canadian Tire has received five reports of the door on the smoker opening while in use. No injuries have been reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these electric smokers. Approximately 2,572 units of the affected Cuisinart electric smokers were sold at Canadian Tire stores across Canada. The recalled Cuisinart electric smokers were manufactured in China and sold between December 2013 and May 2014. Companies: Importer Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited Toronto Ontario Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the affected Cuisinart electric smoker and return them to their local Canadian Tire store for a refund. CATAMARAN LLC: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Parker" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Damien Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Catamaran, LLC, Catamaran PBM Of Illinois II, Inc., and Aerotek, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05396 (N.D. Ill., July 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Catamaran, LLC manages, controls, and operates customer service call centers. The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Tosses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that plaintiffs in a proposed securities class action against Chesapeake Energy Corp. failed to show at the complaint stage that the defendants acted with recklessness or intent regarding their duty to disclose material facts to investors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled. The plaintiffs allege that purchasers of Chesapeake's common stock between April 30, 2009, and May 11, 2012, were misled about the energy supplier's financial condition in two ways. One, they allege that the company did not disclosed that volumetric production payment transactions, under which Chesapeake received immediate cash in exchange for the promise to deliver gas over time, involved future production costs of about $1.4 billion. The defendants allegedly touted the $6.3 billion raised in the transactions but did not disclose the production costs. Two, plaintiffs allege that Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon was allowed to purchase a 2.5 percent interest in new gas wells drilled in a given year but was not required to bear the costs of exploring land on which no wells were ultimately drilled. Plaintiffs argued that this created an incentive for Ms. McClendon to lead the company into "an aggressive land-grab strategy that maximized his odds of participating in productive wells but contributed to Chesapeake's debt problems." Judge Monroe Gunn McKay, in affirming the lower court's dismissal of the case, concluded "there is little in the complaint [against Chesapeake] to support the conclusory allegation that these allegedly misleading omissions and statements were motivated by the intent to defraud or a reckless disregard" of a known fact that was so obviously material that the defendants must have been aware of its materiality and that its non-disclosure would likely lead investors to being mislead. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Judge McKay notes that plaintiffs must plead with particularity facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter, or intent to defraud or recklessness. Moreover, under the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., the inference of scienter must be one that a reasonable person would deem "'cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged,'" Judge McKay said. The plaintiffs only showed that the defendants allegedly knew of the arguably material facts, Judge McKay said. The stock price dropped by nearly 60 percent when the market learned about the downside of the two programs, according to the plaintiffs. CHINA XD PLASTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------- Sungwan Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jie Han, Taylor Zhang, and China XD Plastics Company Limited, Case No. 1:14-cv-05308 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business and operations. China XD Plastics Company Limited engaged in the research, development, manufacture, and sale of modified and engineering plastics products primarily for use in the fabrication of automobile parts and components in the People's Republic of China. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212)202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com CHINA XD PLASTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm on July 15 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Ltd. between August 12, 2009 and July 10, 2014, asserting violations of the federal securities laws and seeking to recover losses of China XD Plastics shareholders. To join the China XD class action, visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan toll-free at 866-767-3653; you may also email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. According to the suit, China XD overstated its revenue and net income in its quarterly and annual reports issued to U.S. investors. On July 10, 2014, Bleecker Street Research released a report asserting that China XD Plastics had filed reports with regulators in China that showed materially smaller amounts of revenue and net income for fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012, than reported in its SEC filings. In addition, the report asserts that China XD Plastics' gross margins are unbelievably high relative to its competitors, and that its CFO has been linked to an embarrassing financial fraud at another Chinese public company. This adverse information caused the price of China XD stock to drop, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 15, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, please visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com To discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CHINA XD PLASTICS: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on July 16 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against China XD Plastics Company Ltd. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-5359, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased China XD securities between August 12, 2009 and July 10, 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 China XD securities during the Class Period, you have until September 15, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. China XD is a specialty chemical company that is engaged in the research, development, manufacture, and sale of modified and engineering plastics products primarily for use in the fabrication of automobile parts and components in the PRC. Its modified plastics are used to fabricate various auto components, including exteriors consisting of automobile bumpers, rearview and side view mirrors, and license plate parts; interiors, such as door panels, dashboards, steering wheels, glove compartments, and safety belt components; and functional components comprising air conditioner casings, heating and ventilation casings, engine covers, and air ducts. The Company also offers specially engineered plastics and environment-friendly plastics for use in oilfield equipment, mining equipment, vessel propulsion systems, and power station equipment. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) China XD reports gross margins substantially higher than its main competitor, yet spends much less on research and development ("R&D"); (ii) China XD reported substantially higher revenues and net income in its SEC filings compared to filings made to the Chinese state regulatory authority known as the State Administration for Industry and Commerce ("SAIC") during the fiscal years 2008 through 2010; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 10, 2014, the price of China XD common stock fell $1.17 (15%) to close at $6.48 on heavy trading volume after the release of an article by the research entity Bleeker Street Research on SeekingAlpha.com, which disclosed for the first time, among other things, that China XD reports gross margins substantially higher than its main competitor, yet spends much less on R&D, and China XD has reported higher revenues and net income in SEC filings compared to SAIC filings. 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. CHRYSLER GROUP: Sunroof Defect Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------- Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a New Jersey federal judge has refused to dismiss a putative class action against Chrysler Group LLC over alleged manufacturing flaws that cause sunroofs on several of its Jeep models to leak, although he reduced the number of claims allowed to proceed in the suit. Judge Michael Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part defendant Chrysler's motion to dismiss the action brought by 11 consumers nationwide, including named plaintiff Jay Miller, who purchased Jeep vehicles with leaking sunroofs. In a June 30 opinion, Judge Shipp said he was dismissing without prejudice the claims against Chrysler for breach of express warranty, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The judge also dismissed claims with prejudice for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. However, Judge Shipp allowed claims for breach of implied warranty, violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and violations of state consumer protection laws to go forward. Judge Shipp rejected Chrysler's argument that the implied warranty claim in this case fails because leaking sunroofs would not render the plaintiffs' vehicles unfit to serve as a mode of transportation. "While defendant may ultimately prevail on this argument, the Court is not prepared to rule a family car that fails to shelter the family from rain "merchantable" as a matter of law," Judge Shipp wrote. The suit claims that failure-prone "drain tubes" and other manufacturing flaws cause factory-installed sunroofs on the Jeep Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country, and Chrysler 300 to permit "rain, snow, sleet, car wash water and other forms of moisture" into the vehicle's cabin, resulting in damage to upholstery, electronics, and other components. Plaintiffs assert that defendant Chrysler knew of the defects, but failed to disclose them to car buyers. Chrysler also routinely refused to provide warranty repairs or other remedies for the leaking sunroofs, plaintiffs allege. CHUANG'S COMPANY: Recalls Old Village White Coffee -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 16, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Chuang's Company Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9056 Chuang's Company Ltd. is recalling Old Village brand White Coffee from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al Karawan Soft Candy Due to Undeclared Egg ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 15, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Coffee Master, Odeco Trading Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9006 The food recall warning issued on July 4, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Coffee Master and Odeco Trading Inc. are recalling Al Karawan brand Soft Candy from the marketplace because they contain egg and wheat which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg or wheat should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg or wheat, do not consume the recalled products as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. COFFEE MASTER: Recalls Al Karawan Candy Due to Undeclared Wheat --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 16, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Coffee Master, Odeco Trading Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail The food recall warning issued on July 15, 2014 has been updated to include additional distribution information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Coffee Master and Odeco Trading Inc. are recalling Al Karawan brand Soft Candy from the marketplace because they contain egg and wheat which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg or wheat should not consume the recalled products. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg or wheat, do not consume the recalled products as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. CORINTHIAN DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Palm Liver Spread -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 16, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Corinthian Distributors Ltd., Wilby Commercial Limited Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Possibly National, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9057 Industry is recalling Palm brand Liver Spread from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 227 g. Palm Liver Spread where milk is not declared in the list of ingredients CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls 2014 MY GT Fury Team & Expert Bicycles -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 17, 2014 Posting date: July 17, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40617 Affected products: 2014 MY GT Fury Team and Expert Bicycles The recall involves two 2014 GT brand downhill mountain bikes. The following bicycle models and code numbers are included in this recall: Bicycle Models Bicycle Codes -------------- ------------- 2014 GT Fury Team GM0046 2014 GT Fury Expert GM0211 The 2014 GT Fury Team is a black downhill mountain bike with lime green accents. The brand GT and the name Fury are in blue. The name Team is in smaller lime green letters and placed just above the name Fury. The 2014 GT Fury Expert is a blue downhill mountain bike with red accents. The brand GT and the name Fury are in white. The name Expert is in smaller red letters and placed just above the name Fury. The wheel hubs can break and cause the brake system to fail, posing crash and injury hazards to the consumer. Cycling Sports Group, Inc. has received five reports of hub failure, including one with injury, involving these bicycles worldwide. No incidents were reported from Canada. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these bicycles. Approximately 32 units of the recalled bicycle were sold by authorized GT Dealers across Canada and approximately 120 units distributed in the United States. The recalled 2014 MY GT Fury Team and Expert bikes were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from February 2014 to June 2014 in Canada and the United States. Companies: Manufacturer Cycling Sports Group, Inc. Norwalk Connecticut United States Consumers should immediately stop using 2014 MY GT Fury Team and Expert bicycles. Consumers should contact a GT authorized dealer for free replacement of both the front and rear complete wheels at no charge. DOLLAR THRIFTY: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Toll Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Ryan and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc. on July 11 urged an Oklahoma federal judge to toss a putative consumer class action accusing it of improperly charging renters inflated "administrative fees" for electronic toll charges, saying the fees were fully disclosed in the rental contract. The suit, which accuses Dollar of breaching customer contracts by tacking on an administrative fee of $15 or $20 for each electronic toll, fails because the fee is outlined in the rental contract. Additionally, the lead plaintiffs assert Oklahoma and Florida consumer protection law claims when the disputed transaction actually occurred in Texas, the company said. "With respect to each cause of action asserted in the complaint, plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," the company said in its motion to dismiss. Filed in May, lead plaintiffs Stephen and Anne Sallee claim that Dollar and two of its subsidiaries improperly charged the higher administrative fee, even though the actual fee associated with processing electronic tolling charges is a fraction of that amount. The Sallees allege the rental car giant misrepresent the administrative fees, harming thousands of consumers. The Sallees, residents of Florida, rented a car from Dollar during a trip to Texas in November and incurred four toll charges totaling $4.70, the complaint said. Upon returning the car, a Dollar agent informed them that there were no additional charges, but the Sallees later received a bill for the $4.70, plus $60 in administrative fees, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs argued the company improperly leads customers to believe that the fees go toward processing the tolls, but only a small portion of those fees are used for administering Dollar's electronic toll program, while the rest is a hidden additional charge on top of customers' rental fees, the suit said. "By representing that its $15 or $25 per toll charge was an 'administrative fee' . . . when the administrative cost of these toll programs is not nearly that high, Dollar breached its contracts with its customers by charging more for customers' rentals without including or otherwise disclosing its rental price increase to them," the complaint said. However, Dollar on July 11 argued the Sallees in their complaint concede that the fees were disclosed in the contract, so the company therefore did not breach the contract by charging the fees. The company said the customers were given the chance to enroll in the Pass24 program offered through Dollar by electronic toll collection company Rent a Toll Ltd., under which Dollar pays for any toll charges customers incurred between $8 and $21 per day. The contract says that any customer who opts out of the program will face the administrative fees, Dollar said. The company also said the plaintiffs are improperly asserting Oklahoma and Florida law claims, even though Texas law is the only one applicable to the suit. The plaintiffs are represented by Tony M. Graham and R. Jack Freeman of Graham & Freeman PLLC, Jeffrey W. Lawrence of The Lawrence Law Firm, Bruce D. Greenberg -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- and Jeffrey A. Shooman -- jshooman@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC and Daniel R. Karon and Laura K. Mummert of Goldman Scarlato Karon & Penny PC. Dollar is represented by Sarah Jane Gillett -- sgillett@hallestill.com -- of Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson PC and John F. Ward -- jward@jenner.com -- III of Jenner & Block LLP. The case is Stephen Sallee et al. v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc. et al., case number 4:14-cv-00250, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. ELPIDA MEMORY: Settles DRAM Class Action for $310 Million --------------------------------------------------------- ABC10 News reports that if you purchased a piece of equipment which uses dynamic random access memory, commonly referred to as DRAM, between 1998 and 2002, you may be eligible to take part in a $310 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette announced the decision on July 14, alerting businesses and consumers who purchased products like computers, video game consoles, MP3 players, printers, PDAs, DVD players or the DRAM itself that they may be entitled to cash payments from the settlement fund. The fund was created through settlements with 12 manufacturers over claims that they conspired to raise the prices of their products. However, if you bought DRAM directly from one of the manufacturers named in the suit, you are not eligible. It is expected that approximately $200 million will be paid out to those affected, who need to file claims by August 1st in order to compensated. It's unknown how much each individual class member will receive, but estimates indicate it will be at least $10. If you think you were affected by the gouging, Mr. Schuette says you can get additional information on the process and how to fill out a claim form at www.dramclaims.com or by calling 1-800-589- 1425. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California presides over this case. The case is called In re: Dynamic Random Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486. The Defendants are: * Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA), Inc.; * Hitachi, Ltd.; * Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., presently known as SK hynix Inc. and SK hynix America Inc.; * Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies North America Corp.; * Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.; * Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.; * Mosel-Vitelic Corp., Mosel-Vitelic (USA), Inc.; * Nanya Technology Corp., Nanya Technology Corp. USA, Inc.; * NEC Electronics America, Inc., presently known as Renesas Electronics America, Inc.; * Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; * Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; and * Winbond Electronics Corp., Winbond Electronics Corporation America, Inc. EUROTRADE IMPORT: Recalls Podravka Luncheon Meat Due to Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: July 17, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Eurotrade Import - Export Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, National, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Yukon Extent of the product distribution: Retail The food recall warning issued on July 15, 2014 has been updated to include additional distribution information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Eurotrade Import - Export Inc. is recalling Podravka brand Luncheon Meat from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 200 g. Podravka Luncheon Meat with all codes where milk is not declared on the label. FINLEY CATERING: Faces "Pew" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- William Pew, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. Finley Catering Co., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04246 (E.D. Pa., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Finley Catering Co., Inc. operates a food service business that caters events at various Philadelphia-area locations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com FOOTWEAR IMPORTS: Recalls Phoenix Safety Footwear PH104 Stampede ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 17, 2014 Posting date: July 17, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Electrical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40591 Affected products: Phoenix brand safety footwear style PH104 Stampede The recall involves the Phoenix safety boot, style PH104 Stampede. It can be identified by the manufacture date Jan. 2014 and manufacturer # 8532 which can be found on the tongue of the boot. The footwear has a tag marking of an omega indicating it complies with Electrical Shock Resistance. The CSA Group has not certified this safety footwear for electrical shock resistance and as such the product may present a risk to the wearer when such protection is required. Neither Health Canada nor Footwear Imports 2001 Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. 687 pairs of boots were distributed in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at select Giant Tiger store locations in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Alberta from May 1, 2014 to June 14, 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Haiyu Limited-Liability Company China Importer Footwear Imports 2001 Inc. Montreal Quebec Canada Consumers with the affected model are advised to immediately discontinue use of the product and to contact their Giant Tiger store for refund or exchange. GABLES PIZZA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Porfirio Ramentol and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. v. Gables Pizza & Salad Corp. and Miguel Bermudez, Case No. 1:14-cv-22647 (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Gables Pizza & Salad Corp. is a restaurant located in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM GENERAL MOTORS: Asks Consumers to Use Single Key in Recalled Cars ----------------------------------------------------------------- Corilyn Shropshire, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that General Motors is advising consumers to use a single key in cars affected by ignition problems until their recalled cars can be repaired. The company ran full-page advertisements in newspapers on July 17, including the Chicago Tribune and the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, asking drivers to remove all items from their key rings because anything beyond the weight of a single key -- including a key fob, rewards cards, or other ornaments usually attached to key chains -- may trigger the ignition to turn off. GM has recalled 29 million vehicles this year, more than half of which were linked to defective ignition switches. At least 13 deaths have been linked to the problem. The ads also ask drivers to make sure the transmission is in the "park" position before leaving the car. Manual transmissions should be placed in reverse, according to the ad. In each case, the parking brake should be applied. GM last year sold 2.8 million vehicles in the United States and 9.7 million worldwide. GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Judge Narrows Claims in MBS Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sistrunk, Kurt Orzeck and Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, report that a New York federal judge has pared claims from a putative class action accusing Goldman Sachs & Co. of making misleading statements in connection with the sale of mortgage- backed securities, according to a July 15 court filing. In a handwritten note dated July 10, U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum indicated that she had granted in part and denied in part Goldman's motion to dismiss parts of the NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund's fourth amended complaint. The notice referred back to an oral opinion issued by the judge and didn't provide details on which claims were dismissed or why. NECA filed the fourth iteration of its long-running suit in November 2012, targeting Goldman, its units Goldman Sachs Mortgage Co. and GS Mortgage Securities Corp., and three executives. The union pension fund alleged the defendants made false and misleading statements in offering documents for GS Mortgage Securities asset-backed certificates issued through 14 trusts. Previous versions of the complaint had been dismissed, but the Second Circuit in September 2012 partially reinstated the proposed class action, finding that NECA alleged a cognizable injury and appropriately represented all potential plaintiffs who purchased certificates from seven of 17 separate offerings. The Second Circuit ruled that the pension fund could plausibly represent the claims made by purchasers of certificates of those seven series because they were made up of mortgages issued by many of the same lenders. Because of that, NECA could argue that it was harmed by the same misrepresentations about the quality of those mortgages as other holders. In June, Goldman filed a motion to dismiss parts of NECA's fourth amended complaint, contending that, among other things, the complaint overstepped the bounds of the Second Circuit's mandate by purporting to include claims related to seven offerings that were previously dismissed for lack of standing. Goldman further argued that the three executives can't be held liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 because they signed only the registration statement and not any of the prospectus supplements that contained the alleged misrepresentations upon which NECA based its claims. The defendants sought the dismissal of several other claims based on Judge Cedarbaum's March ruling in a related class action filed against Goldman by the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit. Pursuant to the court's findings in that case, NECA can't maintain its Section 11 claims against Goldman Sachs Mortgage, and the fund's allegations that the credit ratings assigned to the certificates were somehow false or misleading because they purportedly were based on inaccurate loan data and supposedly "outdated" models must fail, Goldman argued. NECA shot back that the "mandate rule" doesn't bar any of its claims, saying the Second Circuit's decision changed the law on the issue of standing, identifying a new set of facts that must be examined and alleged to determine if a plaintiff has standing. Specifically, a court must examine whether there are common loan originators in both the offerings purchased by the plaintiff and in those offerings that the plaintiff didn't purchase but for which it is asserting claims, NECA said. It is undisputed that all 14 offerings at issue in the fourth amended complaint meet the new standard, the fund said. The fund also contended that Goldman was incorrect to assert that neither GSMC nor the executives can be held liable under Section 11, and said Goldman rehashed old arguments about its credit rating allegations based on an "oversimplified reading" of the complaint. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Cavanagh & O'Hara. The defendants are represented by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. The case is Neca-Ibew Health & Welfare Fund et al. v. Goldman Sachs & Co. et al., case number 1:08-cv-10783, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GREENWORLD FOOD: Recalls Abido Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Greenworld Food Express Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail The food recall warning issued on July 14, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Green World Food Express Inc. is recalling Abido brand coating mixes from the marketplace because they may contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the CFIA's test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. HALCO LIGHTING: Recalls LED Bulbs Due to Risk of Injury ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Halco Lighting Technologies LLC, of Norcross, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 9,500 ProLED bulbs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The LED bulbs can overheat and fall onto consumers below, posing impact and burn hazards. The firm has received reports of five incidents of the LED bulbs separating from the socket. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves 14 Halco LED bulb models used in recessed lights, as outdoor security lighting and in retail displays. The bulbs have a metal cone-shaped housing, are silver in color, either 14 or 18 watts, and have clusters of 6 to 16 LEDs. "ProLED" is printed on a label on the plastic housing of the bulb along with model numbers, product names, and date codes. The PAR30 bulbs measure about 4.75 inches long and 3.75 inches wide. The PAR38 bulbs measure about 4.75 inches long and 4.75 inches wide. The following models are included in the recall: Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/tfVnNU The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at lighting retailers and distributors nationwide from June 2009 through March 2014 for between $20 and $100. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled LED bulbs, remove the bulbs from the fixture and contact Halco for free replacement LED bulbs. HOME DEPOT: Violates Americans with Disabilities Act, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00973-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 18, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Employee Background Checks -------------------------------------------------------------- Karina Basso, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Home Depot Inc. faces a potential class action lawsuit for allegedly running credit reports and background checks without notifying employees and job applicants. The home improvement company also allegedly failed to give current and potential employees copies of the credit and background reports before taking actions against them based on the outcome of these reports, thus violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Home Depot class action lawsuit was filed at a Georgia federal court by Texas resident Trent Henderson on behalf of himself and other potential class members. Mr. Henderson alleges he applied for a job at his local Home Depot in Houston earlier this year via online application. The application included an "I Agree" button preceded by terms and disclosures and application confirmation, which Henderson clicked and provided his agreement. For the application, Mr. Henderson willingly disclosed information about his past history, completed an interview, and performed a drug test as per required by the application process. According to the Home Depot class action lawsuit, "Home Depot obtains consumer reports about applicants, including Henderson, at approximately the same time it requires applicants to complete drug tests." Shortly after the drug test was conducted, Mr. Henderson was allegedly contacted by a Home Depot agent who informed him that he would not be receiving the position of employment because of his background. By refusing to hire Henderson based on the information of this consumer report, Home Depot's actions are considered adverse employment action and violation of FCRA, according to the Home Depot background check class action lawsuit. On May 5, Mr. Henderson and his attorneys requested information about Mr. Henderson's files from Home Depot, including copies of background checks and consumer reports. Home Depot did not respond and did not provide the plaintiff's information. "Home Depot did not provide Henderson with a copy of any consumer report that Home Depot had obtained or a written description of his rights under the FCRA, whether prior to or after notifying him of its decision not to hire him," the class action lawsuit says. His complaint goes on to state that Home Depot routinely refuses to release copies of consumer reports or provide notice of these reports to employees and job applicants. Additionally, Mr. Henderson's class action lawsuit also seeks to address how Home Depot violated FCRA rules through its application agreement prompt. Nowhere in the terms and disclosures provided by Home Depot's online application does it use the term consumer report or indicate to an applicant that Home Depot may search for personal information from consumer report agencies. The Home Depot background check class action lawsuit seeks to certify a Class of individuals who applied for work at Home Depot, agreed to the terms and disclosures, and were subject to consumer report without being informed on or after July 3, 2013. Mr. Henderson's class action lawsuit is also seeking to certify those who have faced adverse employment action, like Mr. Henderson, and who did not receive copies of these reports. Because of the sheer number of people who have applied for employment at Home Depot in the past year alone, the Class of plaintiffs could potentially include thousands of Home Depot applicants. Mr. Henderson is represented by Steven L. Woodrow and Christopher L. Dore of Edelson PC and Jennifer Auer Jordan of The Jordan Firm LLC. The Home Depot Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is Henderson v. The Home Depot Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02123, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. HOME HARDWARE: Recalls GetPower Portable USB Home Charger --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: July 18, 2014 Posting date: July 18, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Unauthorized products Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-40603 Affected products: GetPower Portable USB Home Charger The recall involves the GetPower portable USB home charger AC USB adapter. The two model numbers affected are CWP-ACUSB-MULTI and BD-201A-BD202A. These two models have the same store item number identified as 3514-036 and UPC 7-67322-19196-9. The products were offered in the following colours: assorted pink, red, blue, black, white, green, orange, and purple. The affected product has not been tested to determine whether it is compliant with the Canadian Standards for electrical product safety and may pose a safety hazard. Neither Home Hardware nor Health Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 10,290 units were sold in Home Hardware stores across Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from April 2013 to July 2014. Companies: Importer Home Hardware Stores Ltd. St. Jacobs Ontario Canada Consumers should stop using the portable USB charger immediately and return it to a Home Hardware store for a credit. HONDA MOTOR: Jury Awards $55.3 Mil. to Rollover Crash Victim ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that a jury ordered Honda Motor Co. to pay $55.3 million for a rollover accident that left a Pennsylvania man paralyzed, but the car company said on June 27 it would appeal. Lawyers for Carlos Martinez, 57, of York, argued during a nine-day trial that a faulty seat belt design in his Acura Integra caused the permanent injuries he suffered in 2010. Mr. Martinez was driving to work in suburban Baltimore when a tire blew out and he lost control of the car, said his attorney, Stewart Eisenberg. The seatbelt failed to prevent Mr. Martinez's head from hitting the roof of the car as it rolled over, the lawyer said. Acura is a division of Honda. A spokesman for the company denied any problems with the "proven restraint system used by virtually every manufacturer." "The evidence here clearly established that there is no vehicle- based defect that caused Mr. Martinez's injuries," Honda spokesman Chris Martin said in an emailed statement. Mr. Eisenberg contended Honda knew such an injury was possible based on seat belt testing it conducted in 1992. Damages awarded by the Philadelphia jury on June 26 include money for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of consortium and loss of earnings. Mr. Martinez, a married father of four, worked in construction as a glazier but is now paralyzed from the chest down. "All of a sudden their life is destroyed by this accident," said Eisenberg. Mr. Martinez's nephew, a passenger in the car, was wearing his seatbelt but was not injured, Mr. Eisenberg said. HUDSON VALLEY: Sued over Illegal Reposition of Personal Property ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Clarke, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, Case No. 7:14-cv- 05291 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, specifically out of the wrongful repossession of the Plaintiff's personal property by the Defendant in its illegal efforts to enforce a security interest. Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union is a federal credit union with its principal place of business in Poughkeepsie, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq. Jonathan R. Miller, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 26 Broadway, 21st Fl New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 248-7906 Facsimile: (212) 248-7908 E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com - and - Vildan A. Teske, Esq. Douglas A. Micko, Esq. Marisa C. Katz, Esq. CROWDER, TESKE, KATZ & MICKO, PLLP 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 3210 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 746-1558 IMPERIAL WESTERN: Does Not Give Meal & Rest Periods, Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin E. Renfro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of all other "aggrieved" employees v. Imperial Western Products, a California Corporation, and DOES 1- 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-01448 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2014), seek to recover compensation for missed meal-and-rest periods, compensation for unpaid wages, civil penalties and/or damages for failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, waiting- time penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Imperial Western Products offers various waste oil and grease removal products for commercial food producers and offers truck transportation services for bulk, dry and liquid products, and other commodities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM PC 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Ninth Circuit Affirms Investor Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit on July 16 affirmed Intuitive Surgical Inc.'s win in a securities fraud class action, holding that allegedly false or misleading statements that the company made regarding its finances and growth prospects are largely "nonactionable forward-looking statements" or "garden variety corporate optimism." A three-judge appellate panel upheld U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh's ruling dismissing the suit brought by Intuitive shareholder Police Retirement System of St. Louis. PRS alleged that Intuitive and seven of its executives knowingly or recklessly misrepresented the robotic surgical device maker's financial situation in a 2007 regulatory filing and four analyst calls in 2008, causing artificial inflation of the company's share price. But the Ninth Circuit panel found that PRS' complaint didn't meet the heightened pleading requirements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and federal civil procedural rules. "The heart of PRS' allegations, which target misstatements made during various analyst calls, are not actionable because they are covered by the safe harbor provision of the PSLRA or mere corporate puffery," Judge M. Marget McKeown wrote for the panel. "Nor are the claimed omissions in the 2007 annual report actionable because they are not material." Intuitive, which manufactures the da Vinci line of robotic surgical systems for minimally invasive surgeries, experienced continual revenue growth from 1999 to 2007, and its share price closed at $353 in December 2007, according to court documents. But the company's stock and revenues subsequently began to fall, and by the end of the class period in PRS' suit in January 2009, its share price closed at $110.54, court documents said. Ultimately, Intuitive disclosed that it was unable to sustain system placement growth and that 2008 revenue had increased only 46 percent, meeting the company's guidance of 40 percent growth but falling slightly short of its expected 49 percent to 50 percent growth for 2007, according to court documents. PRS claimed that the individual defendants had access to advance undisclosed information about Intuitive's business and present or future prospects but knew of or recklessly disregarded the falsity of certain public statements and disclosures. In the July 16 ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel characterized the alleged misstatements made during the analyst calls as "classic growth and revenue projections" that fall within the PSLRA's safe harbor. "Contrary to PRS' assertions, the statements are not 'misleading as to the then-present effects and circumstances' of known trends on Intuitive's financial health; they plainly project expectations for future growth," Judge McKeown wrote. Four of the challenged statements in PRS' suit fall into the realm of corporate puffery, the appellate panel said. PRS argued that those statements, including Intuitive's assertion that the opportunity for system placement at hospitals was "still very, very large," are objectively verifiable and qualify as material misstatements. But the panel disagreed, saying the statements are the "antithesis of facts" and represent the "feel good" talk characteristic of nonactionable puffery. While acknowledging that the 2007 annual report filed with the SEC was factually accurate, PRS alleged that certain statements in the report altered the "total mix" of information available to investors, faulting Intuitive for not detailing known trends, including that system placement was declining because of market saturation and the economic downturn. The appellate panel said that the securities laws don't require the kind of reporting demanded by PRS. "Nothing about the statements in the 2007 annual report would give a reasonable investor the impression that Intuitive's growth was different than it was in reality," Judge McKeown wrote. "The statements accurately reflect the company's growth in 2007; they do not purport to speak to any trends in Intuitive's growth or revenues and do not alter the total mix of information available to investors. The 2007 annual report is neither incomplete nor misleading." The panel further found that PRS didn't establish the requisite scienter on the part of Intuitive's executives through any of several theories, including the core operations theory, which relies on the principle that corporate officers have knowledge of the critical core operations of their companies. At best, the facts in PRS' complaint only support an inference of the executives' knowledge of all core operations, not scienter, Judge McKeown wrote. Michael D. Celio of Keker & Van Nest LLP, who argued the case for Intuitive before the Ninth Circuit, praised the appeals court's ruling. "We are thrilled Judge McKeown not only agreed with Judge Koh's well-reasoned opinion dismissing the complaint and exonerating Intuitive Surgical, but also that she restored the core operations theory to its original intention," Mr. Celio said in an email. "Armed with this opinion, future defendants can dedicate their valuable resources to developing their business instead of battling groundless allegations." Judges M. Margaret McKeown, Jerome Farris and A. Wallace Tashima sat on the Ninth Circuit panel. PSR is represented by Ian D. Berg -- iberg@aftlaw.com -- Takeo A. Kellar -- tkellar@aftlaw.com -- Atara Hirsch -- ahirsch@aftlaw.com -- and Mitchell M.Z. Twersky -- mtwersky@aftlaw.com -- of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP. Intuitive is represented by Michael D. Celio -- mcelio@kvn.com -- Robert A. Van Nest --- rvannest@kvn.com -- and Cody S. Harris -- charris@kvn.com -- of Keker & Van Nest LLP. The case is Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. et al., case number 12-16430, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. JOHNS HOPKINS: Agrees to Settle Levy Claims for $190 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Fenton, Scott Dance, Colin Campbell and Nayana Davis, writing for The Baltimore Sun, report that Johns Hopkins Hospital has agreed to pay $190 million to settle claims from thousands of women who may have been surreptitiously recorded during pelvic exams by gynecologist Dr. Nikita A. Levy. The amount of the settlement is one of the largest on record involving sexual misconduct by a physician. Dr. Levy, a doctor in the Johns Hopkins Community Medicine system for 25 years, took his life in February 2013 during an investigation that revealed he was using tiny cameras concealed in pens and key fobs to record patients. Investigators found more than 1,300 videos and images during searches of Dr. Levy's home and office. Plaintiffs' attorneys estimate more than 8,000 patients could have a claim. Because the women could not be identified from the images, all former patients could be considered victims. Anyone treated by Levy has been affected by a feeling of "betrayal" and an invasion of doctor-patient confidentiality, said Jonathan Schochor, the lead attorney for the patients. "Many of our clients still feel a betrayal and lack of trust and have fallen out of the medical system," Mr. Schochor said. "They stopped seeing their doctors, they stopped taking their children to doctors. They refused to see male OB-GYNs, or any OB-GYN. "Their lives, needless to say, have been severely and negatively impacted," he said. In a statement, Hopkins said the settlement would be paid through its insurance policy and "will not in any way compromise the ability of the health system to serve its patients, staff and community." "It is our hope that this settlement, and the findings by law enforcement that the images were not shared, helps those affected achieve a measure of closure," the hospital statement read. Donald L. Devries Jr., an attorney for Hopkins, acknowledged that Levy had committed a "colossal breach of trust" but emphasized that the doctor was a "rogue employee" whose actions could not have been flagged by the institution. "There was no inkling of it," Mr. Devries said. "It's one of those situations where no matter what rules or regulations or whatever you put in place, if somebody wants to violate it secretly as this physician did, there's not a thing that institution is going to be able to do to know that." Howard Janet, another plaintiffs' attorney, disputed that, saying Levy's actions occurred within the scope of his employment as a physician working for Hopkins. "Our position is that if it's something they didn't know, it's something they should have known," Mr. Janet said. While industry experts said Hopkins, a multibillion-dollar operation, would be able to absorb any financial hit, hospital system officials might be more cautious in hiring decisions, especially in affiliated settings that carry the Hopkins banner -- and benefit from its credibility and resources. "That's what the hospital brand name means to the consumer," said Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management, business economics and public policy at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Hopkins might have settled to avoid more liability, said Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "You don't pay $200 million unless you thought you had a risk of losing quite a bit more than that," he said. Dr. Levy, who was 54 at the time of his death, practiced in East Baltimore under the arm of the Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, where he served largely low-income residents of the area. A Jamaican-born New Yorker, he was married and had three children, and had a reputation among some patients as willing to go above and beyond to provide care, such as driving through a snowstorm to deliver a patient's child. In court, plaintiffs' attorneys alleged that Dr. Levy "engaged in doctor-patient boundary violations during the course of his patients' treatment," including "an excessive number of unnecessary pelvic exams and engaging in inappropriate physical contact." Some patients said Dr. Levy practiced without medical professionals on hand as observers. Observers are used routinely in hospitals for the safety of patients and doctors. Kim Hoppe, a spokeswoman for Hopkins Medicine, said hospital officials had "redoubled our efforts to uphold the highest standards of patient privacy." "We have implemented numerous steps to educate, inform and empower our staff to identify and alert us if they have any concerns," she said in an email. "We also conducted a comprehensive initial inspection of our facilities and continue to conduct random inspections." Mr. Schochor said settlement negotiations had been continuing for months until July 18, and attorneys received word on July 21 that Circuit Judge Sylvester B. Cox had granted preliminary approval of the agreement. Attorneys from both sides plan to work with outside experts over the next few months to determine how to calculate individual patient payouts. Mr. Schochor said each plaintiff will be evaluated by a "team of professionals," including a psychiatrist. The plaintiffs will then be placed into one of four categories, based on the degree to which they were affected; attorneys declined to provide more details. Neither side sought to determine which patients were pictured in the images found in Levy's possession, to avoid further privacy violations. The images were of sex organs and did not show faces. "Because we don't know and never will know who was actually videotaped or photographed, no one's in a position to put at ease the minds of Dr. Levy's patients that they were not" recorded, Mr. Janet said. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for September. Additional patients who believe they have a claim to the settlement will be allowed to come forward until November, Mr. Schochor said. It was not clear how much of the settlement the attorneys will receive; Mr. Schochor said that would be decided by the judge. In a class-action lawsuit involving a Delaware pediatrician convicted of recording assaults on hundreds of children that led to a $123 million settlement in 2012, attorneys received 22.5 percent of the total payout. Dr. Levy was terminated by Hopkins on Feb. 8, 2013, after allegations of secret surveillance were brought to the attention of hospital officials by a female colleague who had become suspicious of the pen he wore around his neck. Within days, his Towson-area home was searched by police. He was found dead Feb. 18. He left a letter of apology to his wife before wrapping a plastic bag around his head and pumping it with helium. Among the items seized from Dr. Levy's home and office were six cameras concealed in pens and two cameras concealed in fobs, which can be attached to key chains. Police also seized four computers and several external hard drives. After Dr. Levy's death, authorities continued investigating his activities in an attempt to learn the scope of the criminal activity and determine whether images were shared with others. A spokesman for the Baltimore state's attorney's office said earlier this year that authorities had concluded Dr. Levy was acting on his own. Mark Cheshire, the spokesman, also said at that time that investigators determined Dr. Levy had not recorded underage patients. But Mr. Janet, the plaintiffs' attorney, said on July 21 that 62 underage victims were identified. Police did not respond to questions about the discrepancy. Plaintiffs' attorneys also expressed skepticism that Dr. Levy acted alone; Messrs. Schochor and Janet said the plaintiffs hired a "profiler" who said that those who engage in this type of conduct are "prone to disseminate" their images. They acknowledged, however, that no such evidence was uncovered by investigators. KER MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Bartenders Minimum Wage, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Freudenthal and Marissa Peters, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Ker Management Services, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company, Winghouse III, Inc. formerly known as: Winghouse of Tampa, Inc. a Florida Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-01708 (M.D. Fla., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay all bartenders minimum wage pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Ker Management Services, LLC owns and operates "WingHouse" restaurant throughout the State of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 425-8171 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com KIND LLC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over "Cane Juice" Labeling -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Kat Greene and Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, report that an Illinois federal judge on July 14 tossed a proposed class action accusing snack bar maker Kind LLC of improperly listing evaporated cane juice as an ingredient rather than sugar, finding the plaintiff had failed to adequately allege she had been injured or deceived. Plaintiff Rochelle Ibarrola alleged Kind misrepresented the ingredients in Vanilla Blueberry Clusters and five other products. But U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said Ms. Ibarrola had not explained how she was deceived, or what she believed evaporated cane juice to be, if not a form of sugar. "Ibarrola fails to allege how the inclusion of evaporated cane juice in the list of ingredients or the claim that Vanilla Blueberry Clusters contained no refined sugars affected her decision to purchase the product," the judge said. Judge Ellis said Ms. Ibarrola also had not explained why the inclusion of molasses in the list of ingredients did not cause her to forego buying Vanilla Blueberry Clusters, but the inclusion of cane syrup would have. Molasses is also a sweetener derived from sugar cane, the judge said. Ms. Ibarrola points out that she did not think that Vanilla Blueberry Clusters were sugar free, but she does not make clear what, if anything, she actually thought with regard to the sugar content of, or the sweeteners used in, Vanilla Blueberry Clusters such that the court can infer that she was actually deceived. "Because Ibarrola fails to plausibly allege that she was deceived or that a reasonable person would be deceived by Kind's representations, her fraud and [Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act] claims fail to state a cause of action," the judge said. She also dismissed Ms. Ibarrola's claim for unjust enrichment, saying that absent deception, the claim for unjust enrichment must fail. However, the judge did decline to rule at this stage on the question of whether Ms. Ibarrola has standing to sue for misrepresentations on products that she never purchased. "While Ibarrola alleges only that she purchased Vanilla Blueberry Clusters, she sues Kind for misrepresentations on six of its products. Kind contends that Ibarrola lacks standing with regard to the five other products and that Ibarrola cannot serve as a class representative for those who purchased those products," the judge said, adding that Ibarrola can amend her complaint. Consumers have sued Chobani Inc., Nestle USA Inc. and other companies in the past two years over their use of "evaporated cane juice," claiming the term suggests the products are healthier than they actually are because the ingredient is essentially the same as sugar. The suits have met with mixed success, and many judges have postponed ruling until a hearing from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the matter. The FDA said in March that it was seeking additional input on its recommendation against companies' use of the term evaporated cane juice on food labels, a frequent target of class action litigation in recent years. The FDA is reopening the comment period on its 2009 draft guidance that advised companies against using the term to describe sweeteners derived from sugar cane syrup, since it "falsely suggests that the sweeteners are juice." Kind is represented by Dale J. Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Matthew D. Provance -- mprovance@mayerbrown.com -- and Michael L. Resch -- mresch@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP. Ms. Ibarrola is represented by Wexler Wallace LLP, Oliver Law Group PC, Parker Waichman LLP and Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze LLC. The case is Rochelle Ibarrola v. Kind LLC, number 3:13-cv-50377, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. LIFE UNIFORM: Wants to Sell Rights to Class Action Recoveries ------------------------------------------------------------- LUHC Wind Down Corp., formerly known as Life Uniform Holding Corp., and its affiliates, seek the Bankruptcy Court's authority to sell rights to any payments they may recover as a result of a class action interchange litigation. On October 20, 2005, an action was initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by various retailers and trade associations against Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Mastercard International Inc. The plaintiffs asserted that Visa and Mastercard conspired to unlawfully fix the price of interchange fees to merchants for transactions processed over their networks. An interchange fee is a fee that a merchant's bank pays a customer's bank when merchants accept cards using card networks like Visa and MasterCard for purchases. On December 13, 2013, the Eastern District Court approved a class settlement in the class action interchange litigation. The order approving the settlement is under appeal. Life Uniform may have a claim in the litigation and may be entitled to a monetary recovery. However, it is impossible to predict when the settlement event will occur and any actual recovery could be obtained. To bring additional assets into their estates, Life Uniform want to sell their contingent rights to Cascade Settlement Services LLC or a party submitting a better offer. The parties have negotiated an asset purchase agreement, selling the assets for $135,000, but is subject to higher offers. Michael W. Yurkewicz, Esq., at Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that Life Uniform has attempted to market the asset and reached out to all known industry players. Of the interest received, Life Uniform determined the agreement with Cascade provided the best opportunity. Life Uniform is represented by: Domenic E. Pacitti Michael W. Yurkewicz Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 426-1189 Facsimile: (302) 426-9193 MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Holley" Suit to W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit styled Holley v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT- 003136-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 02553-JTF-cgc to the proceeding. Plaintiff Daniel Holley alleges that he was injured by his physician's off-label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.'s Infuse(R) Bone Graft device. Infuse is a Class III medical device whose design, manufacturing method, and labeling were specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the agency's Premarket Approval process. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Joe Bubalo, Esq. Leslie M. Cronen, Esq. BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS, PLC 9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215 Louisville, KY 40222 Telephone: (502) 753-1600 E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com lcronen@bubalolaw.com - and - Kevin J. Renfro, Esq. BECKER LAW OFFICE 9300 Shelbyville Rd., Suite 215 Louisville, KY 40222 Telephone: (502) 581-1122 E-mail: krenfro@beckerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Leo M. Bearman, Esq. Robert F. Tom, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC First Tennessee Building 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 Facsimile: (901) 577-0818 E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com rtom@bakerdonelson.com - and - Andrew E. Tauber MAYER BROWN, LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3324 Facsimile: (202) 263-5324 E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-8520 Facsimile: (312) 706-8675 E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com - and - Sean P. Fahey, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Telephone: (215) 981-4000 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Set to Rule on O'Bannon Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that after nearly five years that included hundreds of filings, 15 days of trial and millions -- if not tens of millions -- of dollars in legal work, a verdict in the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit now rests with U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. On July 10, attorneys for the plaintiffs submitted a final written closing argument that reflected the bitterness of this protracted, potentially landmark case. Displaying as much derision as legal precision, they called the closing argument that the NCAA filed on July 8 "a stunning admission of defeat" in which it "revisits stale legal debates . . . and preserves issues decided long ago for appeal." "In some places," the plaintiffs added, "it is as if our three- week trial did not occur." That is, at best, an overstatement. The NCAA did say on July 8 it continues to dispute one of Judge Wilken's pre-trial rulings and "preserves this argument for appeal, if necessary." But it admitted nothing, never mind defeat, in its answer to what the plaintiffs offered last week in the first of the closing arguments that Judge Wilken requested from the sides when the trial concluded June 27. If anything, the NCAA's closing kept the pressure on the plaintiffs to further enunciate their position on the most fundamental, albeit legally nuanced, matters of a case that Judge Wilken is likely to decide within weeks but then head for lengthy appeals. NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said on July 10 the association had no comment besides a statement it issued after its filing on July 8 in which chief legal officer Donald Remy said: "Despite their attempt to shoehorn their rhetoric into the framework of an antitrust case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the NCAA's rules violate the law . . . . The plaintiffs' claims are wrong on the facts and unsupported by the law, and the court should reject them." The plaintiffs' lead attorney, Michael Hausfeld, told USA TODAY Sports late on July 10 he feels good about his side's position. "I think the (filing) emphasizes the support in the law for our position," he said. "The (major) conferences say they want reform, but they can't do the reform they want because they are constrained by the have-not schools. That's the essence of the trial. That's the essence of an anti-competitive restraint. And if the (major) conferences can't do what they say they want to do -- what needs to be done -- someone is going to do it for them." That someone would be Judge Wilken. And the plaintiffs -- led by former UCLA basketball player O'Bannon -- are asking her for an injunction that would heavily overhaul the NCAA's limits on what Bowl Subdivision Football and Division I men's basketball players can receive for playing sports and for the use of the names, images and likenesses in in live television broadcasts, rebroadcasts of games and video games. A proposed injunction order filed by the plaintiffs on the final day of the trial would bar the NCAA, its schools, conferences and business partners from having any of 11 prohibitions on prospective, current and former football and men's basketball players. This would result in the players being allowed to make group licensing deals with a school, conference, telecaster or video game manufacturer for the use of their names, images and likenesses. It also would allow deferred compensation for the use of players' names and images to be paid "through a trust fund payable upon expiration of athletic eligibility or graduation, whichever comes first." In addition, it would allow players to receive compensation for "third-party endorsements," as in the Olympic model, as long the respective school approves. Any decision in the plaintiffs' favor could have far-reaching consequences for the NCAA, which is also before Judge Wilken in another set of antitrust lawsuits that are based on the differential between the value of a current athletic scholarship -- basically tuition, room, board, books and mandatory fees -- and the actual cost of attending college. Judge Wilken is "not going to shy away (from ruling for the plaintiffs) because of the consequences," said Steve Williams an attorney who handles anti-trust and complex civil litigation for the Bay Area-based firm Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy and has appeared before Judge Wilken but is not involved in this case. On the other hand, Mr. Williams said, the issues in this case are "a big gray area, and while there are unappealing, unattractive things that the NCAA does, (she) will be focused on the legal issues." The NCAA, in its closing argument on July 8, renewed its contention that the most basic of those issues involves a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA has relied upon for decades to preserve its amateurism system. That ruling, the NCAA has argued, should have prevented the O'Bannon case from getting anywhere near this point. But Judge Wilken, in an October 2013 refusal to dismiss the O'Bannon case, she indicated she does not think the 1984 ruling applies here. Assuming that remains Judge Wilken's position, the first of the issues she must consider in the O'Bannon case involves a determination of whether there are any bona fide markets in which the NCAAs' compensation limits have an impact -- and whether the impacts are harmful. The plaintiffs have offered two markets she must evaluate: * One in which schools compete to recruit football or men's basketball players, or what has been called the college or higher- education market. * Another involving the use of the athletes' names, images and likenesses in live television broadcasts, rebroadcasts of games and video games. As Judge Wilken explained to the sides, according to a transcript of the trial's final session: "So, what we are looking for, then, is a buyer, a seller, a market, a product, an agreement, a restraint, injury, damages, victim." The burden of showing all of this and how it meets antitrust legal standards is on the plaintiffs. The NCAA argued on July 8 that the plaintiffs should be required to stand by their original definition of the education market as one in which the athletes buy educational services and athletic opportunities from schools. The NCAA claims that the alleged restraint occurs in a different market -- one in which the athletes are sellers of the name, image and likeness rights -- and so the plaintiffs' argument should fail. The plaintiffs reiterated on July 10 it is not that simple. They wrote there is an "exchange" transaction between schools and recruits. "Each may be viewed as both a buyer and a seller," they wrote. "Colleges sell educational services and buy athletic services, while athletes buy educational services and sell athletic services. These dual aspects of the exchange transaction are intertwined. . . . In either view of the market, the NCAA exercises" the power to set the price and the terms. With regard to the most financially critical aspect of the market for the use of the athletes' names, images and likenesses in live TV broadcasts, the NCAA contended on July 8 -- as it has throughout the case -- that the law does not recognize athletes' rights to sell their names, images and likenesses in live television broadcasts. This is an argument that Judge Wilken basically rejected in a major pre-trial ruling in April, and the plaintiffs wrote the July 10 that ruling "should not be revisited." Judge Wilken's evaluations of these aspects of the case likely will be based in complex economic and legal principles, but they will be critical. "It's this first stage that will make or break this case," said Michael A. Carrier, a Rutgers-Camden law school professor who has done empirical studies of the outcomes of antitrust cases and has reviewed all of the written closing arguments in the O'Bannon case. "That's why one of the main issues in the post-trial briefs has been over whether the plaintiffs have made the appropriate showing of the markets involved. And I thought they did a nice job showing how the buying and selling aspects are intertwined. "They did a nice job with the markets aspect of the case." If Judge Wilken finds that that the plaintiffs have carried their burden in the markets portion, the case will come down to her determination of whether the benefits that the NCAA and its Division I schools (and possibly sports fans) get from the association's compensation limits outweigh the economic harm that those limits do to football and men's basketball players. Along the way, Judge Wilken will have to determine whether the NCAA has legitimate justifications for its compensation limits and perhaps whether the association can accomplish its goals in a less restrictive way. In their filing on July 10, the plaintiffs continued their campaign against the NCAA's contentions that its limits: * Increase consumer choice and demand because amateurism makes Bowl Subdivision Football and Division I men's basketball distinct from pro football and basketball and, therefore, more appealing to fans than they would be if the players were paid for the use of their names, images and likenesses. The plaintiffs wrote that the NCAA "has not demonstrated that amateurism is a revered, immutable concept or that it has any meaningful effect on the popularity of Division I men's basketball or FBS football." They pointed out that the NCAA has changed its rules about what athletes can receive and they pointed to trial testimony from NCAA President Mark Emmert that he supports the idea of increasing the value of a scholarship so it covers the cost of attendance but that college athletes, as amateurs, should not be paid. The plaintiffs wrote: "This is the perfect tautology: Players cannot be paid if they are amateurs, and Players are amateurs because they are not paid." * Increase output because if schools are allowed to offer football and men's basketball players for use of name and likeness, some schools will leave Bowl Subdivision football and/or Division I sports, which would reduce the number of games available to fans and reduce opportunities for athletes. The plaintiffs termed this "speculative" and unsupported by any economic analysis from an NCAA expert witness. * Maintain competitive balance because if schools can pay athletes for use of name and likeness, higher-revenue schools would pay more money to athletes than would lower-revenue schools, attracting better players. The plaintiffs responded that, at trial, all the NCAA could offer was opinions of school and conference personnel that Judge Wilken previously had deemed "deficient." "This type of self-serving evidence is entitled to little weight," the plaintiffs wrote. * Further the integration of athletics and education by preventing money from making football and men's basketball players less focused on their academics and more isolated from other athletes and students. The plaintiffs contend that graduation rates for football and men's basketball players lag behind the rates for men in general student bodies. They also noted that because football and men's basketball players get full scholarships while many other athletes get partial scholarships, there already is a financial gap between them. If the NCAA has convinced Judge Wilken that even one of the four justifications are legitimate, they can win the case. But if Judge Wilken finds any of the NCAA's justifications are legitimate, she must consider whether the plaintiffs have shown such a goal can be achieved in a substantially less restrictive way. (The NCAA has offered prior court rulings that say such alternatives also must be available "without significantly increased cost," but the plaintiffs took issue with that on July 10, contending other court cases cast "some doubt" on whether that "reflects the current state of the law" in Judge Wilken's geographic jurisdiction.) The plaintiffs again pointed out on July 10 that conferences already are discussing less restrictive alternatives and "all of them are well within the Court's equitable powers to enforce." NEUSTAR INC: Accused of Disclosing Misleading Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Neustar, Inc., Lisa A. Hook, Steven J. Edwards, and Paul S. Lalljie, Case No. 1:14-cv- 00885 (E.D. Va., July 15, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions, and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market. Neustar, Inc. provides communications clearinghouse services to telecommunication companies and internet service providers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. Elizabeth A. Aniskevich, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower Washington, D.C. 20005-3965 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com - and - Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 554 1400 Facsimile: (212) 554 1444 E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com NEW YORK: DOH Sued for Failing to Provide Discontinuance Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- Janie Taylor; Eddy Lemieux by his Next Friend Marie Ladiny; and Anibal Santiago by His Friend Denise Rivera, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Howard Zucker, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; Kristin M. Proud, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Case No. 1:14-cv-05317 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2014), alleges that the Plaintiffs did not receive timely and adequate notice of the reduction and discontinuance of their home care services. Howard Zucker is the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, and as such is responsible for the administration of the Medicaid program in the State of New York. Kristin M. Proud is the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and as such is responsible for the operations of the Office of Fair Hearings, including but not limited to ensuring compliance with Aid Continuing Directives, scheduling and conducting Fair Hearings, issuing recommended decisions after Fair Hearings, and ensuring compliance with Fair Hearing decisions involving the Medicaid program. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq. Sabrina Tavi, Esq. Benjamin Taylor, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212)613-5000 ONE TOUCH: "Isaac" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Isaacs, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. One Touch Direct, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-01716 (M.D. Fla., July 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. One Touch Direct, LLC operates call centers around Tampa, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com PASRICHA & PATEL: Faces "Barros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Barros on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pasricha & Patel, LLC, Gary S. Pasricha also known as: Gurpreet S. Pasricha and Sheetal A. Patel, Case No. 2:14-cv-04436 (D.N.J., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Pasricha & Patel, LLC is a New Jersey law firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell A. Schley, Esq. Law Offices Of Mitchell Schley, LLC Two Tower Center Blvd., 8th Floor East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Telephone: (732) 325-0318 Facsimile: (732) 325-0317 E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com * * * Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a law firm that handles Fair Labor Standards Act cases has been named in a collective action in Newark federal court for allegedly failing to pay overtime to its paralegals. Pasricha & Patel of Edison, N.J., improperly classifies its paralegals as exempt from overtime and does not pay time-and-a- half for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, according to the suit filed July 15. The suit was filed on behalf of the firm's five paralegals and an unspecified number of former paralegals. The named plaintiff, Jason Barros, has worked for the firm for about five years. He put in 440 hours of overtime in 2011, 375 hours in 2012, 75 hours in 2013 and 60 hours to date in 2014, the suit claims. The suit seeks double the overtime wages allegedly due to Mr. Barros and the other collective action members, as provided under the FLSA. Mitchell Schley -- mschley@schleylaw.com -- counsel for the plaintiff, said he could not provide an estimate of the damages because he did not know the salaries of Barros or other paralegals. The law firm's violation of the FLSA is willful and not based on good faith or a reasonable belief that its conduct complied with the statute, the suit says. "In this regard, in addition to the defendants being attorneys, this firm has itself represented employees who have alleged that their employer unlawfully failed to pay them overtime pay in violation of the FLSA," the suit claims. The defendants are the firm and its two principals, Gary Pasricha, also known as Gurpreet Pasricha, and Sheetal Patel. The firm has five lawyers and lists practice areas that include commercial litigation, business law, immigration, family law, motor vehicle violations, personal injury, real estate and business transactions. Mr. Pasricha has handled at least two FLSA cases, in 2009 and 2010, in the District of New Jersey. He represented the plaintiff in one case and the defendant in the other. Both ended in settlements and the terms were not placed on the record. The firm's representations of others in FLSA cases and its representations that its attorneys have expertise in employment law support a finding that its violations were willful, said Schley, a solo in East Brunswick, N.J. The statute of limitations for the FLSA is two years, or three years for willful violations, Schley said. Paralegals' entitlement to overtime is a well-settled question, according to Schley. He cited U.S. Department of Labor regulation 29 C.F.R. Section 541.301(d)(7), which provides that paralegals and legal assistants generally do not qualify as exempt from overtime because an advanced degree is not a prerequisite for entry into the field. Although many paralegals have a four-year college degree, most specialized paralegal programs are two-year associate programs from a community college or similar institution, according to the regulation. Paralegals may be exempt from overtime if they have an advanced specialized degree in another professional field that is applied to their duties, according to the regulation cited by Schley. For example, the regulation says, an engineer who is hired as a paralegal to provide expert advice on product liability or patent cases would qualify for an exemption to overtime. None of the paralegals at Pasricha & Patel fall into that category, since none of them possess advanced specialized degrees in other professional fields, the suit says. Mr. Schley said it was "ironic" that a law firm versed in the FLSA would pay its paralegals a salary but no overtime. "For the most part, law firms realize it's not a debatable question so most law firms pay [overtime to paralegals]," Mr. Schley said. "Then, of course, there are going to be firms that don't pay them and hope for the best." Patrick Papalia -- ppapalia@archerlaw.com -- of Archer & Greiner in Hackensack, N.J., who represents the defendants, said paralegals' entitlement to overtime pay is not as black and white as Mr. Schley depicts it. Rather, each case requires a separate analysis of the claimants' duties, he said. Mr. Papalia cited the holding in Austin v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, (W.D. Wisc., 2006), that a paralegal with a high degree of autonomy can be exempt from overtime. Mr. Papalia added that the regulation cited by the plaintiff's lawyer does not represent a complete picture of federal regulations on overtime for paralegals. Mr. Papalia cited 29 CFR 541.202(c), to support the assertion that paralegals who exercise independent judgment in the way they manage their files may be considered exempt from overtime pay. Barros, the only paralegal currently a party to the case, falls into this category, Mr. Papalia said. PRINCESS TOURS: "Guo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hang Guo, Individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Princess Tours Inc., Yi Di Xue, Yi Guo Yang, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-04319 (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Princess Tours Inc. is engaged in coach bus business located at 34-24 Collins Place, Flushing, NY 11354. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (918) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Farrah" Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Farrah, et al. v. Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01231, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Knoxville). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00338-PLR-HBG to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 519 Allegheny Building 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Facsimile: (412) 471-1033 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com - and - Christopher M. Wood, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP (NASHVILLE) 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - George E. Barrett, Esq. Jerry E. Martin, Esq. Timothy L. Miles, Esq. BARRETT, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com jmartin@barrettjohnston.com tmiles@barrettjohnston.com Consol Plaintiff Paul Jason Chaney is represented by: Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 110 W A Street, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 E-mail: FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC 200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com Consol Plaintiff Jayson Dauphinee is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP (CHICAGO) 10 S LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Paul K. Bramlett, Esq. Robert P. Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 248-2828 Facsimile: (866) 816-4116 E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com pk@bramlettlawoffices.com robert@bramlettlawoffices.com The Defendants are represented by: John S. Hicks, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37201-1800 Telephone: (615) 726-5600 Facsimile: (615) 744-7337 E-mail: jhicks@bakerdonelson.com RITE AID: Faces "Zipf" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ADA ------------------------------------------------------------ Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00975-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 18, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Skil Table Saw -------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Cosby, writing for The Cook County Record, reports that a Tennessee woman is suing a tool manufacturer, claiming she was injured due to faulty safety features on a table saw. Jennifer Adcock filed a lawsuit June 3 in the Cook County Circuit Court against Robert Bosch Tool Corp., citing product liability. According to the complaint, Adcock was using Bosch's Skil table saw on June 17, when the blade came into contact with her left hand and caused severe injuries. Ms. Adcock accuses Bosch of failing to utilize updated safety technology in the blade guard and safety features. About a handful of similar claims involving table saws have been filed in the Cook County Circuit Court since April, including one against Bosch, as well as a few others against Sears and other defendants over Craftsman table saws. Ms. Adcock is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and is being represented in the case by attorneys F. John Cushing III of Cushing Law Offices. Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 2014L005882. RUST-OLEUM CORP: Falsely Marketed Paint Products, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Webber and Lawrence Fredericks, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, RPM International Inc., and Synta Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02248 (D. Md., July 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for false and misleading marketing, advertising, selling and warranting of Rust-Oleum Restore paint products used to resurface outdoor wood and concrete decks and patios, as well as related and attached structures. Rust-Oleum Corporation makes protective paints and coatings for home and businesses. RPM International Inc. is the holding company for Rust-Oleum Corporation and Synta Incorporated. Synta Incorporated is a wholesale paint manufacturer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan S. Thompson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT AND LADUCA LLP 8120 Woodmont Ave Ste 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: brendant@cuneolaw.com SEECO INC: Faces "Wallace" Suit in Eastern District of Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- Claude Wallace and Joe Rath, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Seeco Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00415- BRW (E.D. Ark., July 18, 2014) alleges breach of contract. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Hicks, Esq. 111 Center Street, Suite 1200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 371-0068 E-mail: charleshicks@gmail.com - and - Keith L. Grayson, Esq. GRAYSON & GRAYSON, P.A. 209 East Main Street Heber Springs, AR 72543 Telephone: (501) 206-0905 E-mail: graysonandgrayson@att.net SP AUSNET: To Contribute $378.6 Mil. Towards Settlement Fund ------------------------------------------------------------ News.com.au reports that victims of Victoria's deadliest Black Saturday bushfire look set to receive close to half a billion dollars in compensation, with parties agreeing to settle the class action that ran for more than a year. Subject to the Supreme Court's approval, the plaintiffs will receive a settlement sum of about $494.7 million to compensate them for the devastating effects of the Kilmore East-Kinglake fire, which killed 119 people. Lead plaintiff Carol Matthews lost her son Sam, 22, in their St Andrews home during the horrific events of February 7, 2009. She represents more than 10,000 group members who brought personal injury and property claims against the electricity provider, maintenance servicer and government entities. Ms. Matthews, who made the decision to accept the settlement on behalf of the plaintiffs, said: "The decision to accept the settlement figure was made after lots and lots of discussions with the team at Maurice Blackburn." Asked what she wanted to so next, Mrs. Matthews said: "I woke up on the Friday, I had a life, on the Saturday my past, my present and my future were all thrown up in the air. And now five years later I can't say a lot has changed." The fire killed 119 people, destroyed 1200 homes and caused an estimated $1 billion damage. The plaintiffs claimed the "entirely preventable" fire was sparked due to the negligence of energy giant SPI Electricity, maintenance contractor Utility Services Corporation Limited and the Department of Sustainability and Environment for failing to reduce fuel loads. The DSE, CFA and Victoria Police also faced allegations they failed to give appropriate warnings about the bushfire. SP AusNet company secretary Susan Taylor said the company would contribute $378.6 million towards the settlement, although it did not admit liability. Ms. Taylor said the company maintains that a lightning damage to a conductor that failed on Black Saturday, sparking the blaze, was undetectable and that the company was not negligent. The Victorian State Parties will contribute more than $100 million and Utility Services Corporation will hand over $12.5 million. Ms. Taylor said the total losses suffered by the plaintiffs were not finalized, but it was estimated SP AusNet's contribution would cover up to 35 per cent of the total losses and costs. The judgment in the trial before Justice Jack Forrest, which began in March last year and finished up last month, had been expected to be handed down early next year. Maurice Blackburn lawyers said the payout was more than double the previous highest Australian class action settled of $200 million in the Centro shareholder class action. Andrew Watson, head of Maurice Blackburn's class action department, said it was the best possible settlement. "We squeezed the lemon dry." The class action was so large the Victorian Government funded a purpose-built courtroom to accommodate the teams of barristers, expert witnesses and large numbers of people interested in attending the trial. Four cases brought in relation to the other fires have settled and a trial over the Murrindindi-Marysville blaze is due to begin later this year. SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Garcia, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective v. Spectrum Of Creations, Inc. d/b/a Food Trends and Alison Moskowicz, Case No. 1:14-cv-05298 (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, tips illegally retained by Defendants, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Spectrum Of Creations, Inc. is a catering business under the trade name Food Trends. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 TIMOTHY D. PADGETT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Battle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Timothy D. Padgett, individually, and Timothy D. Padgett, P.A., a Florida Professional Corporation, Case No. 2:14- cv-14286-KAM (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq. 5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: (772) 234-5150 Facsimile: (772) 234-5321 E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com WELLS FARGO: Removed "Zanders" Suit to Southern District of Iowa ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Zanders, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. LACL130554, was removed from the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa (Central). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00288-JEG-RAW to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs want to collect unpaid wages from the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark D. Sherinian, Esq. Melissa C. Hasso, Esq. SHERINIAN & WALKER PC 630 Colony Park 3737 Woodland Avenue West Des Moines, IA 50266 Telephone: (515) 224-2079 Facsimile: (515) 224-2321 E-mail: sherinianlaw@msn.com mhasso@sherinianlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Karin A. Johnson, Esq. Michael A. Giudicessi, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP (IA) 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA 50309-8011 Telephone: (515) 248-9000 Facsimile: (515) 248-9010 E-mail: karin.johnson@faegrebd.com michael.giudicessi@faegrebd.com * FDA Provides Ready Access to Recall Data Through API ------------------------------------------------------ Taha A. Kass-Hout, M.D., M.S., in article for FDAVoice, reports that every year, hundreds of human and animal foods, drugs, and medical devices are recalled from the market by manufacturers. These products may be labeled incorrectly or might pose health or safety issues. Most recalls are voluntary; in some cases they may be ordered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Recalls are reported to the FDA, and compiled into its Recall Enterprise System, or RES. Every week, the FDA releases an enforcement report that catalogues these recalls. And now, for the first time, there is an Application Programming Interface (API) that offers developers and researchers direct access to all of the drug, device, and food enforcement reports, dating back to 2004. The recalls in this dataset provide an illuminating window into both the safety of individual products and the safety of the marketplace at large. Recent reports have included such recalls as certain food products (for not containing the vitamins listed on the label), a soba noodle salad (for containing unlisted soy ingredients), and a pain reliever (for not following laboratory testing requirements). At present, FDA provides various ways to access the recalls data, including an RSS feed, a Flickr stream, and a search interface. This new API supplements these sources as the first, and one-call, access to the entire enforcements archive. The hope is that this API will be useful to developers and researchers interested in FDA enforcement actions. Developers can now call into the API to add recalls data to mobile apps or consumer websites. And researchers could use the API to study individual manufacturers, product categories, or specific foods or drugs. The recalls database is the second dataset to be released on openFDA. Since openFDA debuted on June 2, 2014, the website has generated considerable interest. In the past five weeks, the site has had 34,000 sessions (two-thirds are new sessions) from 26,000 unique visitors worldwide that generated 80,000 page views. The adverse events API has been accessed by 18,000 Internet connected devices, with nearly 2.4 million API calls since the launch. At least one new website, http://www.researchae.com has been created to allow any user to submit queries on the adverse events data, and several other companies are integrating the data into their products and services. It is also being accessed by researchers inside and outside FDA and by journalists as well. More APIs will follow in the weeks ahead. OpenFDA is taking an agile (development in small chunks of iterations) approach in the creation and release of these APIs, with the objective of getting feedback from developers and researchers (as well as from industry and the public) at the GitHub and StackExchange forums that serve our project. "We plan to incorporate some of the feedback into future iterations of the API. Accordingly, as we learn more about how the public might seek to use this data -- and as a result of our agile and user-centered methodologies -- the API structure may change in quite a bit in the coming months. It's also important to note that this API, like all others on openFDA, are in beta and are not ready for clinical use. However, their contribution to FDA's public health mission already now grows every day," Mr. Kass-Hout said. ********* 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 * * *