/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140812.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 12, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 159 Headlines 850 TONY'S PIZZA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime AARP: Sued in D.C. Court for Collecting Members' Info ADVANTAGE PEST: Faces "Baltierra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT AMERICAN WATER: Court OKs Bid to Defer Conference in "Good" Suit APPLE INC: Suits Over iPods and iTunes Store Content Pending APPLE INC: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing in E-Books Antitrust Case Deal ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Dismisses "Corcia" Suit in its Entirety BALANS L.C.: "Gavilan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Russo" Class Action BAY SHORE: Faces "Awan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BLUE LINE: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CARDINAL HEALTH: Judge Tosses Conspiracy, Monopoly Claims CHILDREN'S REHAB: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CHURCHILL BENEFIT: Illegally Deducts Paychecks, "Short" Suit Says CLC RESORTS: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Wagner" Case COCA-COLA: Court Tosses Motion for Class Action Authorization COCA-COLA: Sued Over Orange Juice Deceptive Advertising FERRELLGAS L.P.: Sued Over Illegal Reduction of Propane Levels FERRELLGAS L.P.: Sued in D. Kansas Over Price-Fixing of Propane FIRST SERVICE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Silva" Suit Says GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Over Fin'l Report GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Nevada GENERAL MOTORS: Faces $10-Bil. Class Action Over Recalls GOLUB CORPORATION: Faces "Davine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GOODRICH CORP: Bid to Remand "Rodriguez" Suit Gets Court Approval HEALTH CARE: Sued Over Exclusion of Mental Illness Coverage HEAVENLY SPIRITS: Faces "Ghalemi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LACHINE HOSPITAL: Bariatric Patients Mull Class Action LEROS POINT: "Gonqueh" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MERKURY CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MICHIGAN: Bid for Protective Order in Suit vs. MDOC Denied MIDWEST IRRIGATION: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims NATE'S AUTO: Faces "Yunio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NATIONAL HOCKEY: Zelle Hofmann Files Head Injury Class Action NEUSTAR INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit by Pension System in Va. NEW FOOD: Faces "De Los Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT NEW JERSEY: Labor Dept Accused of Harassing Laid-Off Workers NEW YORK CITY: DOT Fails to Construct Accessible Ramps, Suit Says NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharges OMNICARE INC: Faces TCPA Violation Suit in California Court OMNICARE INC: Dismissal of Ky. Securities Suit Under Appeal OMNICARE INC: Appeals Reversal of Order Junking Securities Suit PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Court OKs Stipulation in "Kress" Case QR ENERGY: Faces "Hoefgen" Suit Over Illegal Sale of Partnership RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages RIVERBAY CORP: Court Certifies Subclasses in "Ramirez" Case RONAN, MT: Insurance to Cover Class Action v. Police Department ROSBOROUGH PARTNERS: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SECURITY LIFE: Court Dismisses "Ackley" Class Action SEI INVESTMENTS: Bares Updates on Suits Related to Stanford Trust SHERIDAN LABS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Deceptive Billing Practices SISTERS OF CHARITY: Sued in D. Kansas Over Violation of ERISA SOGRO INC: Motion to Dismiss "Velasco" Class Action Denied SONY COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over Blurry Graphics of Killzone Game STAPLES INC: Illegally Procure Consumer Reports, Suit Claims TAISHAN GYPSUM: Sued in La. Over Sale of Defective Drywall TARSADIA HOTEL: Court Awards Atty. Fees in Investors' Suit TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Zenebe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TRANSNET: High Court Reserves Judgment in Pensioners' Class Action TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Court Allows "Roppo" to File Amended Case TRI TECH HOLDING: Faces Amended Securities Complaint in N.Y. TRULAND SYSTEMS: Union Workers Mull Class Action Over Back Wages UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Dismisses Tomz From Securities Suit UNILEVER NV: Deal Reached in Keratin Smoothing Kit Class Suit UNITIL CORP: Fitchburg Customers Appeal Denial of Certification VALIANT INSURANCE: Obtains Summary Judgment in "Bowman" Case VALLEY FORGE: Judge Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Suit Over Background Screening Policy WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Accused Unlawful Background Check Policy WATTS WATER: Settlement of Suit Over Toilet Connectors Approved WHIRLPOOL CORP: Embraco Antitrust Settlement Gets Court Approval ********* 850 TONY'S PIZZA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeronimo Perez Ramirez and Raul Rico Hernandez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 850 Tony's Pizza, Inc. and Ernesto Buonincontri, Case No. 1:14-cv-04557 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), seeks to recover overtime premium pay and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. 850 Tony's Pizza, Inc. operates a restaurant called Tony's Pizza at 850 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lizabeth Schalet, Esq. Robert D. Lipman, Esq. David A. Robins, Esq. LIPMAN & PLESUR 500 North Broadway, Suite 105 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 931-0050 Facsimile: (516) 931-0030 E-mail: schalet@lipmanplesur.com robins@lipmanplesur.com lipman@lipmanplesur.com AARP: Sued in D.C. Court for Collecting Members' Info ----------------------------------------------------- Ethel Austin-Spearman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AARP, a District of Columbia corporation, and AARP Services Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv- 01288 (D.D.C., July 29, 2014), alleges that the Defendants routinely allows third party data analytics companies to collect its members' personally identifiable information -- including at least their name, race, email address, state of residence, and employment information -- along with the precise materials that they're viewing on the AARP website. AARP is one of largest organizations in the United States for people aged 50 years and over. It also purports to provide its members with a number of benefits, including discounts on shopping, dining, and travel as well as financial and insurance- related products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria Christina Simon, Esq. MCCARRON & DIESE 4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 301 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (703) 652-4365 E-mail: msimon@thegellerlawgroup.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq. Alicia E. Hwang, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com bthomassen@edelson.com ahwang@edelson.com ADVANTAGE PEST: Faces "Baltierra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Guzmaro Baltierra, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advantage Pest Control Co., Inc, Pest Management Inc., jointly d/b/a Advantage Tony Ortiz and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-05917 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours premiums, unlawful deductions, unlawful kickbacks and statutory penalties for notice and record-keeping violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Advantage Pest Control Co. Inc. offers pests control services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq. EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 113 University Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 473-8700 Facsimile: (212) 473-8705 E-mail: gene@eisnerassociates.com AMERICAN WATER: Court OKs Bid to Defer Conference in "Good" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In CRYSTAL GOOD, individually and as parent and next friend of minor children M.T.S., N.T.K. and A.M.S. and MELISSA JOHNSON, individually and as parent of her unborn child, MARY LACY and JOAN GREEN and JAMILA AISHA OLIVER, WENDY RENEE RUIZ and KIMBERLY OGIER and ROY J. McNEAL and GEORGIA HAMRA and MADDIE FIELDS and BRENDA BAISDEN, d/b/a FRIENDLY FACES DAYCARE, and ALADDIN RESTAURANT, INC., and R. G. GUNNOE FARMS LLC, and DUNBAR PLAZA, INC., d/b/a DUNBAR PLAZA HOTEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., and AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., and EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY and WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, d/b/a WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN WATER, and GARY SOUTHERN and DENNIS P. FARRELL and CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, INC., and TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. and CAST & BAKER CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-01374, (S.D. W.Va.), pending are the motions by defendants American Water Works Company, Inc., American Water Works Service Company, Inc., and West Virginia American Water Company (collectively "WVAWC") seeking deferral of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference and any subsequent discovery until such time as the discovery planning process can be completed efficiently and effectively, filed June 18, 2014, and WVAWC's motion to strike the Rule 26(f) report of planning meeting, filed July 8, 2014. District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., in a memorandum opinion and order dated July 31, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/2mkKssfrom Leagle.com, granted the motion to defer, and denied the motion to strike. "The court appreciates the plaintiffs' desire to move forward with the discovery process. Little is gained, however, by attempting to structure that process piecemeal when all parties with a stake in the matter are not present and permitted an opportunity to be heard," Judge Copenhaver held. "Additionally, while plaintiffs' unilateral Rule 26(f) filing is arguably a fugitive document, and is thus not accorded Rule 26(f) status, it may aid the parties' impending discussions respecting case management." The Court further ordered that these dates be fixed as the time by or on which certain events must occur: 08/19/2014 Motions under F.R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with supporting briefs, memoranda, affidavits, or other supporting matter. (All motions unsupported by memoranda will be denied without prejudice pursuant to L.R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a)). 08/29/2014 Last day for Rule 26(f) meeting. 09/03/2014 Last day to file Report of Parties Planning Meeting. 09/05/2014 Scheduling conference at 9:30 a.m. at the Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel directed to appear. 09/12/2014 Entry of scheduling order. 09/19/2014 Last day to serve F.R. Civ. P 26(a)(1) disclosures. "The court has additionally considered the suitability of staying further action in this case pending the disposition of any Rule 12(b)(6) motions filed in this case or the matter of remand in Desimone Hospitality Services v. West Virginia American Water Company, 2:14-14845," held Judge Copenhaver. "A stay is deemed inappropriate at this time." The Court directed the Clerk to forward copies of the written opinion and order to all counsel of record and to the individuals designated as liaison counsel in the consolidated action styled Desimone Hospitality Services, LLC v. West Virginia American Water Co., 2:14-14845 (S.D. W. Va.). Anthony J. Majestro Scott E. Schuster Guy Bucci William F. Dobbs, Jr. Benjamin L. Bailey Crystal Good, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. M.T.S., Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. N.T.K., and, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. A.M.S., Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Melissa Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Aladdin Restaurant, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Georgia Hamra, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Brenda Baisden, 2:14-cv-11011, Plaintiff, represented by John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES & David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY. Mary Lacy, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Joan Green, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Jamila Aisha Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Wendy Renee Ruiz, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Kimberly Ogier, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Roy J. McNeal, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Maddie Fields, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. R.G. Gunnoe Farms LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. Dunbar Plaza, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT. American Water Works Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY, Alton Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, Chase Orion Holcomb, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY, Robert O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS, Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY & L. Jill McIntyre, JACKSON KELLY. American Water Works Service Company, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY, Alton Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, Chase Orion Holcomb, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY, Robert O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS, Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY & L. Jill McIntyre, JACKSON KELLY. Eastman Chemical Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Lance D. Leisure, BLANK ROME, Marc E. Williams, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Melissa Foster Bird, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Robert L. Massie, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH & Robert Scott, BLANK ROME. Gary Southern, 2:14-cv-11011, a Florida resident, Defendant, represented by Erin J. Webb, KAY CASTO & CHANEY, Luci R. Wellborn, KAY CASTO & CHANEY, Pamela C. Deem, KAY CASTO & CHANEY & Robert B. Allen, KAY CASTO & CHANEY. West Virginia-American Water Company, 2:14-cv-11011, Defendant, represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY, Alton Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, Chase Orion Holcomb, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY, Robert O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY & Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS. Dennis P. Farrell, Defendant, represented by David R. Pogue, CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER & Michael W. Carey, CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER. Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brandon J. Verdream, CLARK HILL, Mark F. Nowak, CLARK HILL & Vincent M. Roskovensky, CLARK HILL. Triad Engineering, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alex Manuel Greenberg, HUDDLESTON BOLEN, Kevin A. Nelson, HUDDLESTON BOLEN & Patrick T. White, HUDDLESTON BOLEN. Cast & Baker Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael P. Markins, MANNION & GRAY. APPLE INC: Suits Over iPods and iTunes Store Content Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The cases Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.) are currently pending, according to the company's June 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2014. These related cases were filed on January 3, 2005 and July 21, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of direct purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and video purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California monopolization law. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys fees. Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights management free versions of any songs downloaded from iTunes or an order requiring the Company to license its digital rights management to all competing music players. The cases are currently pending. APPLE INC: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing in E-Books Antitrust Case Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Denise Cote entered on August 1, 2014, a memorandum opinion & order in IN RE ELECTRONIC BOOKS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THE STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA) INC., et al., Defendants, NOS. 11MD2293 (DLC), 12CV3394 (DLC), (S.D. N.Y.). The plaintiffs in this certified class action and this parens patriae action on July 16, 2014, moved for preliminary approval of a settlement with Apple Inc. These actions were filed on August 9, 2011, and April 11, 2012, respectively. A liability trial was held in June of 2013, in which the States and the United States as the plaintiff in related litigation succeeded in proving that Apple had conspired with five book publishers (the Publisher Defendants) to raise e-book prices, whether examined as a per se violation of the antitrust laws or under the rule of reason. Apple's appeal of that liability decision is pending before the Court of Appeals. On June 3, 2014, a damages trial was scheduled to be held in the class action and parens patriae action for August 25, 2014. On June 16, the Court was advised that the parties had executed a binding agreement in principle to resolve damages issues. With their July 16 motion seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement, the parties sought to delay notice to consumers of the Settlement until after the final resolution of Apple's appeal. A July 17 Order required the parties to assume immediate distribution of the notice. On July 23, the parties jointly submitted notice and distribution plans, which the parties amended through submissions on July 30. In his memorandum, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/leGU74from Leagle.com, Judge Cote granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, and approved the notice plan, as revised on July 30. Judge Cote held that the proposed settlement class is identical to the class certified on March 28, 2014. "For the reasons set forth in that Opinion, the settlement class meets all of the requirements for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3)," he said. The Court's choice of lead plaintiffs Anthony Petru, Thomas Friedman, and Shane S. Davis, and class counsel Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PPLC are confirmed. Judge Cote directed that the Proposed Settlement Notice Plan be in place by September 15, 2014, and the Proposed Amended Direct Notice be sent out on or before September 15, 2014. Kinsella Communications and Rust Consulting will serve as the Notice and Claims Administrators for purposes of implementing the Settlement Agreement. Eligible consumers have until October 31, 2014 to opt out of the Settlement or object to it. Plaintiffs must file a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement on or before November 14, 2014. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on November 21, 2014 at 2 p.m. at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, Courtroom 15B. Shilpa Grover, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Don Allen Resnikoff, Finkelstein Thompson, L.L.P., Douglas G. Thompson, Finkelstein,Thompson & Loughran, Eugene J. Benick, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP & Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP. Fredric A. Press, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Don Allen Resnikoff, Finkelstein Thompson, L.L.P., Douglas G. Thompson, Finkelstein,Thompson & Loughran, Eugene J. Benick, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP & Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP. Anthony Petru, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC. Jeffrey Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Douglas G. Thompson, Finkelstein,Thompson & Loughran, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward, Halebian L.L.P. & Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP. Clarissa Weiss, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Douglas G. Thompson, Finkelstein,Thompson & Loughran, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward, Halebian L.L.P. & Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP. Rhonda Burstein, Plaintiff, represented by Jay W. Eisenhofer, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John D. Radice, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA & Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.. Juan Sotomayor, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Pearsall Goodwin, Berger & Montague, P.C., David Howard Leventhal, Law Office of David H. Leventhal, David Francis Sorensen, Berger & Montague, P.C, Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., Jan R. Bartelli, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Kendall S. Zylstra, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Stephen E. Connolly, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. Robert Cheatham, Plaintiff, represented by Jay L. Himes, Labaton & Sucharow LLP & Gregory Scott Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP. John T. Meyer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, P.L.L.P. & W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P.. Paul Meyer, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward, Halebian L.L.P. & W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P.. Paul J. Meyer, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Heidi M. Silton, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward, Halebian L.L.P., Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, P.L.L.P. & W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P.. Liana Lingofelt, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobnson LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Keith Essenmacher, Lovell, Steward, Halebian L.L.P., Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, P.L.L.P. & W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P.. Marcia Greene, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emmy L Levens, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, George Farah, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, John Douglas Richards, Pomerantz LLP, Kit A. Pierson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C.. Aubrie Ann Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emmy L Levens, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, George Farah, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, John Douglas Richards, Pomerantz LLP, Kit A. Pierson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C.. David Yastrab, on behalf of himself and all others similiarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Cyrus Joubin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP & Peter George Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, LLP. Brian Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Douglas Penny, Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C.. Harrison Goldman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC. Kevin Rader-Rhodenbaugh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP & Gary E. Mason, The Mason Law Firm, P.C.. Brian McGee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brett H Cebulash, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Dianne M. Nast, Roda & Nast, P.C., Erin C Burns, RodaNast P.C. & Kevin Sylvan Landau, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP. Carol Ness, Plaintiff, represented by Brett H Cebulash, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Dianne M. Nast, Roda & Nast, P.C., Erin C Burns, RodaNast P.C. & Kevin Sylvan Landau, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP. Katrina Key, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Peter Guglielmo, Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Daniel Jay Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm P.C., Max Raphael Schwartz, Scott Scott, L.L.P. & Richard S. Frankowski, Burnham Brown. Patsy Diamond, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eugene A. Spector, Spector, Roseman & Kodroff Willis, P.C., Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Spector, Roseman & Kodroff Willis, P.C., Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., Jonathan M. Jagher, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis PC & Michael Francis Ram, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP. Marcus Mathis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC. Eugenia Ruane-Gonzales, Eugenia Ruane-Gonzales, Plaintiff, represented by Harry Shulman, Shulman Law. Steven Rivers, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Marie Zeman, Girrard Gibbs LLP. Christian Gilstrap, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Cynthia J. Tyler, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Thomas Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Jeremy Sheppeck, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Aloysius J. Brown, Iii, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Anne M. Rinaldi, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Laura J. Warner, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Barbara Heath, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Kathleen Linda Pitlock, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Kathleen Weiss, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Matthew A. Hosking, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Diane Urbanec, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Ed Macauley, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Ronna Hamelin, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. James L. Nesmith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Lauren Albert, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Sue Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Shane S. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Sue Ellen Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Charles Leonard Pelton, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Kimberly Whiteside Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Steven D. Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Jessica Moyer, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Andreas Albeck, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Farley Keller, Keller Grover LLP, Gregory Alan Frank, Murray Frank LLP & Jade Erin Butman, Keller Grover LLP. Rebecca L. Rossman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, Lpa, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC & Todd B. Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA. Miriam Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, Lpa, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC & Todd B. Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA. Carole C. Kehl, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, Lpa, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC & Todd B. Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA. Kamal Sonti, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, Lpa, Shana Eve Scarlett, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart Mckinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC & Todd B. Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA. Gretchen Ulbee, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana Eve Scarlett. Eugenia Ruane-Gonzales, Plaintiff, represented by Harry Shulman, Shulman Law, Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. Katrina Key, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke, Scott + Scott, LLP, Daniel Jay Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm P.C., Kristen M. Anderson, Scott + Scott, LLP, Richard S. Frankowski, Burnham Brown & Walter W. Noss, Scott+Scott LLP. Chad Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Dina Elizabeth Micheletti, Fazio & Micheletti LLP, Jeffrey Louis Fazio, Fazio & Micheletti LLP, Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.. Grace Hoke, Plaintiff, represented by Dina Elizabeth Micheletti, Fazio & Micheletti LLP, Jeffrey Louis Fazio, Fazio & Micheletti LLP, Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.. Steven Rivers, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Marie Zeman, Girrard Gibbs LLP, Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Girard Gibbs LLP & Eric H. Gibbs, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo. Susan Horowitz, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Bryan Lee Clobes, Cafferty Faucher LLP, Christopher B. Sanchez, Cafferty Faucher LLP, Daniel Herrera, Cafferty Faucher LLP, Ellen Meriwether, Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, Kelly Tucker, Caferty Faucher LLP, Shana Eve Scarlett & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Amy D. Nolan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Joseph Mario Patane, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane & Lauren Clare Russell, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP. Elvira Monzon, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Joesph Greenfogel, Lite Depalma Greenberg, LLC. United States Of America, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel McCuaig, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Div, Mary Beth McGee, United States Litigation III Section, Nathan P. Sutton, United States Litigation III Section, Owen M Kendler, United States Litigation III Section, Stephen Thayer Fairchild, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division & William H. Jones, II, U.S. Department of Justice. The State of Texas, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Lipman, Office of The Attorney General, State of Texas, David M. Ashton, Texas Attorney General's Office & Rebecca Fisher, Senior Assistant Attorney General. The State of Connecticut, Plaintiff, represented by Gary M. Becker, Connecticut Office of the Attorney General, Michael E. Cole, Attorney General & W. Joseph Nielsen, State of Connecticut Office of The Attorney General. The State of Alaska, Plaintiff, represented by Clyde E. Sniffen, Jr., Senoir Assistant Attorney General. The State of Arizona, Plaintiff, represented by Devin M. Laiho, Assistant Attorney General, Nancy M. Bonnell, Attorney General of Arizona & Susan V. Myers, Assistant Attorney General. The State of Illinois, Plaintiff, represented by Chadwick O. Brooker, Assistant Attorney General & Robert W. Pratt, Office of the Illinois Attorney General Antitrust Bureau. The State of Colorado, Plaintiff, represented by Devin M. Laiho, Assistant Attorney General. The State of Iowa, Plaintiff, represented by Layne M. Lindebak, Iowa Department of Justice. The State of Maryland, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen S. Cooper, Office of the Attorney General, John R. Tennis, State of Maryland & Schonette Walker, Assistant Attorney General. The State of Missouri, Plaintiff, represented by Anne E. Schneider, Office of the Attorney General & Brianna Lynne Lennon, Assistant Attorney General. The State of Ohio, Plaintiff, represented by Doreen C. Johnson, Office of the Attorney General, Edward J. Olszewski, Assistant Attorney General, Jessica I. Oldham, Office of the Attorney General & Mitchell L. Gentile, Office of the Ohio Attorney General. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Donahue, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Jennifer J. Kirk, Deputy Attorney General & Joseph S. Betsko, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Plaintiff, represented by Jose M. Tous Cardona, Office of the Attorney General & Jose G. Diaz- Tejera, Chief Deputy Attorney General. The State of South Dakota, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey P. Hallem, S.D. Office of Attorney General. the State of Tennessee, Plaintiff, represented by Victor John Domen, Jr., Office of the Tennessee Attorney General. The State of Vermont, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Kriger, Assistant Attorney General. The State of West Virginia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L. Davis, Assisant Attorney General. The State of Arkansas, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Wells, Arkansas Attorney General's Office & Nancy M. Bonnell, Attorney General of Arizona. The District of Columbia, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Anne Jackson, Attorney General's Office For The District of Columbia. The State of Florida, Plaintiff, represented by Lizabeth Ann Brady, Fl Office of The Attorney General. The State of Idaho, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Talmage DeLange, Idaho Attorney General's Office. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Franck, Massachusetts Office of The Attorney General. The State of Michigan, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Robert Evans, Michigan Department of Attorney General. The State of Nebraska, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory John Walklin, Nebraska Attorney General's Office & Melissa R. Vincent, Nebraska Attorney General's Office. The State of New Hampshire, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Rienzo, New Hampshire Department of Justice. The State of New Mexico, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E. Jackson, New Mexico Attorney General's Office. The State Of New York, Plaintiff, represented by Geralyn Jeanette Trujillo, State of New York Office of the Attorney General, Linda J. Gargiulo, New York State Attorney General & Robert L. Hubbard, New York Attorney General's Office, Antitrust Bureau. The State of North Carolina, Plaintiff, represented by K. D. Sturgis, North Caroilna Department of Justice. The State of Rhode Island, Plaintiff, represented by Edmund F. Murray, Attorney General of Rhode Island. The State of South Carolina, Plaintiff, represented by C. Harvid Jones, Jr., Attorney General of South Carolina & Jenny Draffin Smith, South Carolina Office of The Attorney General. The State of Utah, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald J. Ockey, Attorney General of Utah. The Commonwealth of Virginia, Plaintiff, represented by Sarah Oxenham Allen, Office of The Attorney General. The State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, represented by Gwendolyn Jean Cooley, Wisonsin Department of Justice. The State of Alabama, Consolidated Plaintiff, Pro Se. The State of Delaware, Consolidated Plaintiff, Pro Se. The State of Indiana, Consolidated Plaintiff, Pro Se. The State of Nebraska, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Gregory John Walklin, Nebraska Attorney General's Office. The State of New York, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Eric Jonathan Stock, Hogan Lovells US LLP. The State of Wisconsin, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Gwendolyn Jean Cooley, Wisonsin Department of Justice. Class Plaintiffs, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Katrina Key, Movant, represented by Christopher M. Burke, Scott + Scott, LLP & Richard S. Frankowski, Burnham Brown. MacMillian, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alexandra Shear, Sidley Austin LLP & Joel M. Mitnick, Sidley Austin LLP. Harpercollins Publishers, Defendant, represented by Clifford Hank Aronson, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Madison Eckles, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Raoul Dion Kennedy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Richard Stephen Horvath, Jr., Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP & Shepard Goldfein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Penguin Group USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison Sheedy, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Daniel F. McInnis, Thompson Hine LLP, David A. Donohoe, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Gregory J. Granitto, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Mollie Mcgowan Lemberg, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Reginald David Steer, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. Random House Inc., Defendant, represented by Saul P Morgenstern, Kaye Scholer LLP. Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Christine Louise Demana, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Daniel S. Floyd, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Daniel G. Swanson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Gail Lees, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Hane Lee Kim, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Jay Srinivasan, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Lawrence Jay Zweifach, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Lisa Heather Rubin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Orin Snyder, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Hachette Book Group, Defendant, represented by Samuel Joseph Rubin, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Timothy P. Harkness, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP & Walter B. Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. Amazon.Com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Ross Wang, Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, Michael Edward Kipling, Kipling Law Group PLLC & Robert David Kaplan, Friedman, Kaplan, Seiler and Adelman. Barnes & Noble Inc., Defendant, represented by David Boies, II, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Julia Carolyn Hamilton, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. Harpercollins publishers, inc.;, Defendant, represented by Raoul Dion Kennedy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Paul Madison Eckles, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Richard Stephen Horvath, Jr., Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. Macmillan Publishers, Inc.., Defendant, represented by Joel M. Mitnick, Sidley Austin LLP & Alexandra Shear, Sidley Austin LLP. Hachette Digital, Inc., Defendant, represented by Walter B. Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Hiram Robert Andrews, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Richard Sutton Snyder, Sr., Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Us LLP & Samuel Joseph Rubin, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. Hachette Livre SA, Defendant, represented by Walter B. Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Hiram Robert Andrews, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Richard Sutton Snyder, Sr., Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Us LLP & Samuel Joseph Rubin, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joel M. Mitnick, Sidley Austin LLP, Alexandra Shear, Sidley Austin LLP & John J. Lavelle, Sidley Austin LLP. Hachette Book Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Walter B. Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Hiram Robert Andrews, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Richard Sutton Snyder, Sr., Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Us LLP, Samuel Joseph Rubin, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP & Timothy P. Harkness, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Matthew Michael Martino, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Shepard Goldfein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Hachette Digital, Inc., Defendant, represented by Walter B. Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Hiram Robert Andrews, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Richard Sutton Snyder, Sr., Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Us LLP & Timothy P. Harkness, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, Doing business as Macmillan, Defendant, represented by John J. Lavelle, Sidley Austin LLP. Penguin Group (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel F. McInnis, Thompson Hine LLP, Allison Sheedy, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP & Gregory J. Granitto, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP. Hachette Book Group, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter B. Stuart, IV, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP & Bryan Lewis Bloom, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP. Simon & Schuster, Inc., Defendant, represented by Yehudah Lev Buchweitz, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Eric Stephen Wolfish, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, James W. Quinn, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP & Jeffrey Leonard White, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP. Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, ADR Provider, represented by Joel M. Mitnick, Sidley Austin LLP, Alexandra Shear, Sidley Austin LLP & John J. Lavelle, Sidley Austin LLP. Bob Kohn, Objector, represented by Steven Brower, Buchalter Nemer. Rebecca L. Rossman, Interested Party, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, Lpa. Baker & Taylor, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Evan Glassman, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP & Michael Jarrett Allan, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP. Anthony Petru, et al., All Plaintiffs, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. Class Plaintiffs, All Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Court Dismisses "Corcia" Suit in its Entirety --------------------------------------------------------------- Chana Corcia brought a putative class action on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated, alleging that Asset Acceptance, LLC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692 et seq. The Plaintiffs' claims concern two sentences in a letter she received from Asset, dated June 19, 2013: "We may report information about your account to credit bureaus. Correspondence concerning inaccuracies and disputes relating to your credit report should be sent to: P.O. Box 1630 Warren, MI 48090-1630." The Plaintiff contended that this statement was false, deceptive, or misleading, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. Asset moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that none of the disputed language is false, misleading, or deceptive. District Judge Joseph F. Bianco granted Asset Acceptance's motion to dismiss in its entirety in a memorandum and order dated July 22, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/m7L77jfrom Leagle.com. The plaintiff's request for leave to amend to file a third amended complaint is denied, Judge Bianco held. "Any amendment would be futile because, as a matter of law, the debt collection letter that Asset sent to plaintiff was not false, deceptive, or misleading to the least sophisticated consumer," he concluded. The case is CHANA CORCIA, Plaintiff, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Defendant, NO. 13-CV-6404 (JFB)(GRB), (E.D. N.Y.). Plaintiff is represented by Shimshon Wexler The Law Offices of Shimshon Wexler, PC, Atlanta, GA. Defendant is represented by Jill M. Wheaton -- jwheaton@dykerna.com -- of Dykema Gossett PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, and Richard D. Lane, Jr. -- rdlane@mdwcg.com -- of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, New York, NY. BALANS L.C.: "Gavilan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Marcelo Gavilan and Ramon Sanchez individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Balans, L.C., Balans Brickell, LLC, Balans Dadeland, LLC, XYZ Entities 1-10, and Lily Adenete, and Cristina Adams, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22791 (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Balans, L.C., Balans Brickell, LLC and Balans Dadeland, LLC are restaurants offering a modem brasserie-cafe style menu, with five locations in Miami-Dade County and locations in London, England. The Plaintiff is represented by: Oscar Edgar Sanchez, Esq. OSCAR E. SANCHEZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 701 Brickell Key Boulevard, Suite CU-1 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 416-0060 Facsimile: 416-9310 E-mail: lawsanchez@gmail.com BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Russo" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Russo obtained a home mortgage loan from Bank of America, N.A. Six years later, she received from the Bank a letter informing her that she had been approved to participate in a "trial period plan," during which she could make reduced monthly payments on her mortgage. If Ms. Russo completed the trial program successfully, she would qualify for a permanent modification of her mortgage. Ms. Russo did obtain a permanent modification of her mortgage; however, she alleges that Bank of America failed to report her on-time trial payments and subsequent post-modification payments to the credit bureaus, and thus breached both the trial- period (TPP) and modification agreements. Ms. Russo also alleges that, because of the Bank's breach, she lost credit opportunities and has suffered damage to her credit rating. Bank of America moved to dismiss Russo's breach-of-contract claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In a memorandum opinion and order entered August 1, 2014 District Judge Manish S. Shah granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Shah's ruling is available at http://is.gd/IJUzk4from Leagle.com. The motion is granted as it pertains to Russo's allegations concerning a breach of her permanent loan modification agreement. The motion is denied as it pertains to Russo's allegations concerning a breach of the TPP agreement, ruled the Court. The case is BARBARA RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, NO. 14 CV 382, (N.D. Ill.). Barbara Russo, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg Michael Barbakoff -- gbarbakoff@siprut.com -- Siprut Pc, Gregory Wood Jones -- gjones@siprut.com -- Siprut Pc & Joseph J Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC. Bank of America, NA, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven Russell Smith -- srsmith@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Matthew M. Petersen -- matt.petersen@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave, Llp. BAY SHORE: Faces "Awan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Choudry Tahir Awan on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Hamid Khan Durrani also known as: Zahid Durrani and Bay Shore Smoke Shop, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-04562 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, punitive damages, actual damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bay Shore Smoke Shop Inc. owns and operates a retail store located at 59 Bay Shore Road, Bay Shore, New York 11706. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliot F. Bloom, Esq. 1551 Kellum Place, Second Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 739-5300 Facsimile: (516): 739-3202 E-mail: eb.efbesq@gmail.com BLUE LINE: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lazaro Vizcon Ojeda and other similarly situated individuals v. Blue Line Distribution, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Rey Paredes, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22797 (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Blue Line Distribution, Inc is engaged in food service distribution business. 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 CARDINAL HEALTH: Judge Tosses Conspiracy, Monopoly Claims --------------------------------------------------------- David Siegel and Dan Packel, writing for Law360, report that a Pennsylvania federal judge on July 30 refused to entirely throw out a putative class action against medical supply companies Cardinal Health Inc. and Owens & Minor Inc., keeping alive antitrust injury claims but tossing allegations of conspiracy and unlawful monopolization. In a memorandum accompanying an order denying in part and granting in part motions to dismiss filed by the two medical supply companies, U.S. District Judge Juan R. Sanchez decided plaintiff Schuylkill Health System, a nonprofit hospital owner, had made sufficiently specific allegations of injury to establish standing under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Schuylkill alleges Cardinal and Owens engaged in a monopolistic scheme to get small hospitals to purchase sutures, stitches and similar merchandise only from them by bundling the sale of sutures and related products to their other wares. "SHS has adequately pleaded that defendants' scheme injures all direct purchasers, regardless of whether they were subject to the contractual restraints, because the aggregate effect of the discount program is that defendants can charge higher prices than would be possible under competitive conditions," Judge Sanchez wrote. "Paying higher prices is the quintessential form of antitrust injury." Brent Landau -- blandau@hausfeldllp.com -- of Hausfeld LLP, who represents SHS, told Law360 he welcomes the court's decision. "We are pleased that the court has allowed our principal claims to proceed and look forward to litigating the case on behalf of the plaintiff and proposed class," Mr. Landau said. During argument on the motions in March, John Gibson of Crowell & Moring LLP, representing Owens & Minor, said that the two companies developed similar bundling policies only because they had anticipated each other's moves, calling them "independent parallel actions." He said that Schuylkill failed to reveal any actual agreement between the two businesses. But Mr. Landau, who was outnumbered six-to-one by attorneys for the defendants, said that all the hospital needed to do was show that the two businesses' largest competitor was being denied the opportunity to compete in order to demonstrate that it had been harmed. While claims alleging increased prices were allowed to remain in the suit, Judge Sanchez threw out SHS's conspiracy claims, saying the nonprofit had only stated in a "conclusory fashion" that the defendants conspired to allocate markets or employ identical contractual terms. Judge Sanchez also said the fact the defendants are members of a trade association that hosts annual conferences does not alone support the conclusion their parallel conduct amounts to a conspiracy. "SHS does no more than describe merely parallel conduct that could just as well be independent action," Judge Sanchez wrote. In rejecting SHS's claims alleging Cardinal and Owens created an unlawful monopoly, Judge Sanchez said the companies' 39 percent and 33 percent respective market shares are not sufficient to indicate monopoly power, and SHS had not set forth any allegations regarding strength of competition, probable development of the industry, or the elasticity of consumer demand. Owens & Minor Inc. is represented by John Gibson -- jgibson@crowell.com --of Crowell & Moring LLP and Aimee Kumer -- alk@elliottgreenleaf.com -- and Mary Kohart -- mek@elliottgreenleaf.com -- of Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski PC. Cardinal Health is represented by Paula Render -- prender@jonesday.com -- Michael Sennett, Michelle Fischer -- mfischer@jonesday.com -- and John Iole -- jeiole@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day. Schuylkill Health is represented by Brent Landau and Gary Smith -- gsmith@hausfeldllp.com -- of Hausfeld LLP. The case is Schuylkill Health System v. Cardinal Health Inc. et al, case number 2:12-cv-07065, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. CHILDREN'S REHAB: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Nguyen on her own behalf and in behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Our Children's Rehab Center Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation, Greater Polk County Rehab Services Inc., a Florida corporation, Heike Reeves, individually, Sharon McManus Comkowycz, individually, Case No. 8:14-cv-01836 (M.D. Fla., July 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide therapy and rehabilitation services. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Kemp Brinson, Esq. THE BRINSON FIRM PO Box 582 Winter Haven, FL 33882 Telephone: (863) 288-0234 Facsimile: (863) 508-7684 E-mail: kbrinson@brinsonfirm.com CHURCHILL BENEFIT: Illegally Deducts Paychecks, "Short" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Short and John Volny, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Churchill Benefit Corporation dba Yurcor; The Mill Group, Inc.; Digital Kitchen, LLC; Framestore, Inc.; Panda Panther, Inc.; Brand New School, Inc.; Logan, Inc.; Quietman, Inc.; The Lab, Inc.; Suspect, Inc.; and Smoke and Mirrors, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04561 (E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), seeks to recovery wages illegally deducted from the Plaintiff's paychecks without written authorization and otherwise in violation of law, penalties and liquidated damages under the New York Labor Laws. Churchill Benefit Corporation doing business as Yurcor is a business process outsourcing company that offers workforce procurement platform, a solution of hosted application services for vendor management, procurement, time and expense processing, billing, payroll processing and reporting. The Mill Group, Inc., Digital Kitchen, LLC, Framestore, Inc., Panda Panther, Inc., Brand New School, Inc., Logan, Inc., Quietman, Inc., The Lab, Inc., Suspect, Inc., and Smoke and Mirrors, LLC own and operate visual effects, animation and design studios. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM 29 Broadway, Suite 1515 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 952-0602 Facsimile: (212) 952-0608 E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com - and - Stuart libicki, esq. SCHWARTZ, STEINSAPIR, DOHRMANN & SOMMERS LLP 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90048-5268 Telephone: (323) 655-4700 Facsimile: (323) 655-4488 Email: sl@ssdslaw.com - and - Arthur Grebow, Esq. GREBOW & RUBIN, LLP 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 260 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 783-1100 Facsimile: (818) 783-1103 Email: agrebow@grebowrubinlaw.com - and - William T. Payne, Esq. Pamina Ewing, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Forbes Avenue, 17th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Facsimile: (412) 281-1007 Email: wpayne@fdpklaw.com pewing@fdpklaw.com CLC RESORTS: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss "Wagner" Case ------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. CLC RESORTS AND DEVELOPMENTS, INC., SURREY VACATION RESORTS, INC. and PASSPORT HOLIDAYS, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 6:14-CV-281-ORL-31GJK, (M.D. Fla.) is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff's responses. The complaint states that CLC and Surrey contracted with Passport to assist them with marketing their resort and timeshare offers to potential consumers. Passport would place telephone calls to potential consumers by utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). In an amended complaint filed on April 17, 2014, Mr. Wagne alleged that the Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)A(iii) and 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Defendants filed motions to dismiss Mr. Wagner's amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to make relatively specific allegations. District Judge Gregory A. Presnell denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Y5WdCXfrom Leagle.com. Judge Presnell found that at the very least, Mr. Wagner's allegations in the amended complaint meet the threshold for asserting a class action. "Defendants' arguments are better suited as challenges to a motion for class certification, rather than as a basis for a motion to dismiss," he said. Mr. Wagner had argued that a dismissal based on class action allegations would be premature at this stage of the proceedings. Judge Presnell agreed. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Michael Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Stefan Coleman, Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, PLLC, Ari Jonathan Scharg -- ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., John C. Ochoa -- jochoa@edelson.com Edelson -- P.C. & Mark S. Eisen -- meisen@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C. Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph C. Sullivan -- jsullivan@taylorenglish.com -- Taylor English Duma, LLP & Kenneth Michael Swann, Snyderburn, Rishoi & Swann, LLP. Passport Holidays, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles David Hood, Jr. -- dhood@daytonalaw.com -- Smith, Hood, Loucks, Stout, Bigman & Brock, PA & Douglas A. Daniels -- doug@danielslegal.com -- Douglas A. Daniels, PA. CLC Fractional LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Jerry Ray Linscott -- jlinscott@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP & Julie Singer Brady -- jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP. COCA-COLA: Court Tosses Motion for Class Action Authorization ------------------------------------------------------------- Stefano Mingarelli of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that much has been written or said about the Supreme Court of Canada recent decisions in Infineon Technologies and Vivendi Canada with respect to the low threshold that is imposed on petitioners at the authorization (certification) stage of a class proceeding in Quebec. Yet in the last two months, the Superior Court of Quebec has rejected two motions for authorization to bring a class action, in part because the petitioners had not sufficiently investigated the nature and composition of the class prior to filing their motions. Wilkinson c. Coca-Cola Ltd, 2014 QCCS 2631 In Wilkinson, the Petitioner filed a motion for authorization against Coca-Cola, on behalf of all residents of Canada (excluding B.C. and Alberta) who purchased Glaceau Vitaminwater, on the basis of allegations that Coca-Cola had misled consumers into purchasing Vitaminewater by misrepresenting its sugar content and health benefits, and had thus violated the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act and the Civil Code of Quebec. While the Court ultimately dismissed the motion for authorization as the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the allegations of fact, if proven, would lead to the conclusions sought. Justice Micheline Perreault nonetheless took it upon herself to note in obiter that under art. 1003 d) C.C.P., a petitioner must have conducted at least a minimal investigation to advance the litigation in order to show that he will adequately represent the interests of the class members. According to the Court, the transcripts of the petitioner's examination indicate that only 13 people from Quebec had registered on his lawyer's website, and that the petitioner had not contacted any of these 13 people to determine whether they actually had a cause of action against the respondent. Moreover, even in light of the fact that petitioner filed an updated list with 45 people at the hearing on authorization, the petitioner failed to indicate that he had made efforts to contact any of these additional people. The Court concluded that the petitioner had made no investigation to determine whether a proper class existed. Martel v. Kia Canada Inc.2014 QCCS 3273 In Martel, the Petitioner filed a motion for authorization against Kia Canada on behalf of all consumers who reside in Quebec and who purchased a Kia vehicle whose maintenance program, as described by the owner's manual, differed from the maintenance program required by the dealer. The petitioner alleged that Kia had violated the Consumer Protection Act by making false representations in their owner's manual regarding the usage of motor oil as well as their maintenance programs. While consumers were allegedly told to service their vehicle at every 12,000 km or every 12 months, they were then told by their dealers and the manufacturer that because they lived in Quebec oil maintenance had to take place at every 8,000 or 6,000 km. In its reasons, Justice Pierre C. Gagnon held that even though the Petitioner's Motion satisfied article 1003 (b) considering that the facts alleged in the claim seemed to justify the conclusion sought, he nevertheless refused to authorize the Class Action on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to satisfy paragraphs 1003 (a), 1003 (c) and 1003 (d) C.C.P. The Court notes that the transcripts of the petitioner's examination seem to suggest that the reason she decided to represent all the consumers residing in Quebec who had purchased a Kia vehicle in the prescribed period was because Petitioner looked around her community to find people who had similar claims against Kia, but because she lives in an isolated environment, and because she did not know many people in that community or who drove a Kia, she could not find anyone else who was interested in filing a claim. In support of her claim, Petitioner filed a document outlining all the sales Kia had made in Quebec from 2009 to 2010 as suggestive of a potential class. Justice Gagnon, however, concludes that nothing in the allegations submitted or in the evidence filed permitted a Court to verify how many of the consumers had actually been affected by the faulty drafting of Kia's owner manual. The Court reasons that it would have been expected that the petitioner and its lawyers create a website to gather information about potential members and their grievances. According to the Court, it is simply unacceptable that Petitioner omit to undertake some kind of an investigation prior to filing her motion simply because she had just moved to a new community and did not know anybody. Moreover, the Court notes that even though the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Infineon and Vivendi require that the authorization Judge be rather flexible in his analysis of a petitioner's claim, Justice Gagnon concludes that a petitioner must nevertheless show that there is a class of actual members whom the petitioner will be able to represent, not just hypothetical ones. Conclusion While much has been written about the Supreme Court's liberalism regarding the authorization process in Quebec, these two decisions provide a welcome reminder that petitioners and their Counsel must not only evaluate the merit of their claims prior to bringing class action proceedings, but must also investigate the existence of, and establish first contact with, potential class members, as was underlined by the Quebec Court of Appeal in Del Guidice v. Honda Canada. Even if the authorization process is a filtering mechanism designed to eliminate frivolous or unfounded claims, this does not free Petitioners and class counsel from the obligation of showing that a reasonable investigation was completed before the motion for authorization was filed, and that the Petitioner can provide a sufficiently realistic estimate of the number of class members to enable the court properly evaluate the conditions for authorization. COCA-COLA: Sued Over Orange Juice Deceptive Advertising ------------------------------------------------------- Brianne Pfannenstiel, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that another lawsuit claiming that Coca-Cola Co.'s "fresh" juice products are anything but natural is headed to Kansas City. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri became home to the Coca-Cola orange juice litigation in 2012 after a number of class actions were filed and consolidated there. Those cases alleged that Coca-Cola, which makes Simply Orange juice, fraudulently advertises that it is "100% pure squeezed" with "no water or preservatives added." Instead, Plaintiff Gwen Phelps claims the products "are actually concocted via a highly-engineered and unnatural process -- anything but simple or natural." The lawsuit describes the juice production process in detail: Coke creates a flavor profile detailing acidity and sweetness to have a consistent taste in its product. Oranges are grown in Brazil, juiced and then stored in large silos. The juice is transported through a 1.2-mile underground pipeline to the packaging plant, where it is flash pasteurized and stripped of its oxygen. That extends the life of the juice before spoiling, but it also removes much of the flavor. The juice is covered with a "nitrogen gas blanket" to keep the oxygen out. Technicians later inject "flavor packs" back into the juice to "bring it back to life." It says the process means the raw juice can be kept and stored for as long as a year. Ms. Phelps claims in the petition that she would not have bought the juice had she known how it was made. She claims intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, violations of the California false advertising act and violations of state consumer protections laws. The case was recently transferred from California into the Western District of Missouri in Kansas City, where it was consolidated with previously filed cases. One phase of discovery was closed on May 7. A motion for additional discovery has been filed. Olivier Taillieu and Gilbert Perez of the National Injury Law Firm LLP in Beverly Hills, Calif., representing Phelps. Norm Siegel -- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP in Kansas City represents plaintiffs in the other consolidated cases. A number of firms represent Coca-Cola. Locally, Adam Moore -- amoore@rwdmlaw.com -- of Rasmussen Willis Dickey & Moore LLC and Anthony Martinez of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP represent the company. FERRELLGAS L.P.: Sued Over Illegal Reduction of Propane Levels -------------------------------------------------------------- Speed Stop 32, Inc., a Michigan corporation d/b/a Towns Mart Marathon, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, Inc., Amerigas Propane, L.P., Amerigas Partners, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02379 (D. Kan., July 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspire to reduce the propane fill level to 15 pounds per tank while maintaining the same price per "full" tank. The Defendants are the largest distributors of propane exchange tanks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Coykendall, Esq. MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD. 300 N. Mead Street, Suite 200 Wichita, KS 67202-2745 Telephone: (316) 262-2671 Facsimile: (316) 262-6226 E-mail: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com - and - Barry S. Taus, Esq. Kevin Landau, Esq. Archana Tamoshunas, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com atamoshunas@tcllaw.com FERRELLGAS L.P.: Sued in D. Kansas Over Price-Fixing of Propane --------------------------------------------------------------- Zarco USA, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, Inc., Amerigas Propane, L.P., Amerigas Partners, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv- 02381 (D. Kan., July 30, 2014), arises out of a conspiracy to fix the price of propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks. The Defendants are the largest distributors of propane exchange tanks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1177 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com FIRST SERVICE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Silva" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rodolfo Silva and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. First Service Residential Florida, Inc. f/k/a The Continental Group, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-61742 (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. First Service Residential Florida, Inc. is a real estate company within the State of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Over Fin'l Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marissa Ballesteros, individually and all others similarly situated v. Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. James C. Czirr, Peter G. Traber and Jack W. Callicutt, Case No. . 3:14-cv-00399 (D. Nev., July 30, 2014), is asserted against the Defendants who made materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. is a development stage company engaged in the research and development of therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - William M. O'Mara, Esq. THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, PC 311 E. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-1321 Facsimile: (775) 323-4082 E-mail: bill@omaralaw.net GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Nevada ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 30 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of Galectin Therapeutics Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014, inclusive. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July 30, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/galectin/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Galectin and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Galectin is a development stage company engaged in the research and development of therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer. The Company's lead product candidates include GR-MD-02 to treat non-alcoholic steatohepatitis or NASH, a disease that leads to fatty buildup in the liver and can potentially lead to cirrhosis and/or liver cancer. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing public about the Company's business and prospects. As a result of defendants' false statements, Galectin's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $18.30 per share on February 27, 2014. On July 24, 2014, Emerging Growth Corp. disseminated a press release through Accesswire stating that Galectin was "nipping at [the] heels" of its competitors and "actually may be closer than what first appears with a Phase 1 trial because of the potential to treat fatty liver disease even once it has progressed." Then, on July 28, 2014, an article on SeekingAlpha.com claimed that Galectin had "strong ties to stock promoters" engaging in a misleading brand awareness campaign aimed at boosting its stock price. The same day, a separate article on TheStreet.com revealed that Emerging Growth, through its parent company TDM Financial, a penny-stock promotions firm, was the investor relations and marketing company Galectin was paying for misleading promotional campaigns to entice investors to buy its stock. On this news, Galectin's stock fell $8.84 per share to close at $5.70 per share on July 29, 2014, a one-day decline of nearly 61% on volume of nearly 7.7 million shares. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Galectin publicly traded securities during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With more than 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces $10-Bil. Class Action Over Recalls -------------------------------------------------------- Vindy.com reports that issues continue to pile up against General Motors with the filing of a class-action lawsuit valued at as much as $10 billion. The lawsuits and negative reports, however, don't appear to be hurting sales of GM vehicles. Projections show GM sales up for July over July 2013. Customer attitudes seem to be that because of the current recalls, GM can't afford to have more problems, said Jesse Toprak, senior analyst for Cars.com. "Customers expect the company to be extremely vigilant now and not repeat past mistakes," he said. Surveys to consumers do not show much impact now in or the future because of the recalls, Mr. Toprak said. The Lordstown-built Chevrolet Cobalts were included in the GM recalls. The class-action lawsuit started with a single plaintiff, Anna Andrews. It was initially filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. Since then a second plaintiff, Ishmail Sesay, has been added, and the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. The lawsuit claims that because of deception, GM buyers lost between $500 and $2,900 in vehicle resale values. GOLUB CORPORATION: Faces "Davine" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Shelly J. Davine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Golub Corporation, The Price Chopper, Inc., Price Chopper Operating Co. of Massachusetts, Inc., Neil M. Golub, Jerel Golub, John J. Enders, Jr., Christine C. Daniels, and Jerel T. Golub, Case No. 3:14-cv-30136 (D. Mass., July 30, 2014) is brought over the Defendants' failure to pay overtime premium pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate 135 supermarkets in the Northeast United States, including over 15 stores throughout Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin K. Steffans, Esq. Kevin M. Kinne, Esq. COHEN KINNE VALICENTI & COOK LLP 28 North Street, 3rd Floor Pittsfield, MA 01201 Telephone: (413) 443-9399 E-mail: bsteffans@cohenkinne.com kkinne@cohenkinne.com - and - Rachel Bien, Esq. Katrina Eiland, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com keilan@outtengolden.com GOODRICH CORP: Bid to Remand "Rodriguez" Suit Gets Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John A. Mendez remands the case captioned RAPHAEL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOODRICH CORPORATION, a corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, a corporation; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01026 JAM AC, (E.D. Cal.). This matter was removed by the Defendants to the District Court on April 25, 2014, alleging original federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), based on diversity of citizenship. Although the Plaintiff's total individual damages only amount to $7,436.80, Defendants alleged that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied because "the attorneys' fees alone would exceed $75,000." Judge Mendez, in his ruling dated July 31, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/mc2lbsfrom Leagle.com, held that the amount of the Plaintiff's individual damages in controversy is $7,436.80. The Defendants have, thus, failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees would exceed $67,563.20. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted, Judge Mendez concluded. The Defendants' Motion to Amend is moot, and the August 20, 2014 hearing date in the case is vacated, Judge Mendez added. Raphael Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Lavi, Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP & Jordan Domingo Bello, Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP. Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Lawrence Brophy -- jbrophy@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Leo Q. Li -- lli@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw & Jon D. Meer -- jmeer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Lawrence Brophy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Leo Q. Li, Seyfarth Shaw & Jon D. Meer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Lawrence Brophy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Leo Q. Li, Seyfarth Shaw & Jon D. Meer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. HEALTH CARE: Sued Over Exclusion of Mental Illness Coverage ----------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth A. Craft; and Jane Doe, a minor, by her next friend and parent, Elizabeth A. Craft; on their own behalves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Health Care Service Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05853 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2014), seeks to end Defendant's discriminatory practice of excluding all coverage for the treatment of mental illness in Residential Treatment Centers. Health Care Service Corporation is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, it issues and administers health care plans in five states through five divisions, operating, respectively, under the names of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas. HCSC is the largest customer-owned health insurer in the United States and fourth largest overall, with nearly 14 million members. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Caroline Elizabeth Reynolds, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 Facsimile: (212) 704-4256 E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com creynolds@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com - and - George Freeman Galland Jr., Esq. MINER BARNHILL & GALLAND 14 West Erie Street Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (312) 751-1170 E-mail: ggalland@lawmbg.com - and - Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 598-3690 E-mail: meiram@psych-appeal.org HEAVENLY SPIRITS: Faces "Ghalemi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Ottman El Ghalemi and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Heavenly Spirits Inc. d/b/a Enso Miss Tao Buck 15 Nairi Kazumyan, Case No. 1:14-cv-22790 (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Heavenly Spirits Inc. owns and operates 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 LACHINE HOSPITAL: Bariatric Patients Mull Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ CTV Montreal reports that two women who underwent bariatric surgery at Lachine Hospital want to file a class-action suit against the institution. The women are part of a group of patients who were sent letters last February, told they'd have to undergo blood tests due to a surgical instrument that wasn't properly cleaned. The patients were recalled to ensure they weren't infected with blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis. The two women tested negative but say they suffered damages in stress, fear, pain and loss of time as a result of the hospital's negligence. A judge will determine if the lawsuit will be approved. LEROS POINT: "Gonqueh" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Aken Gonqueh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Leros Point To Point, Inc., Leros Management, Inc., John Ny, Jeffrey Nyikos, and Christ Nyikos, Case No. 1:14-cv-05883 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, unlawful deductions, misappropriate service charges purported to be gratuities, unpaid commissions and other wages. The Defendants operate chauffer services throughout the United States. They operate a fleet of over 200 cars in the United States specializing in ground transportation for business and corporate customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq. Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com nmelito@fslawfirm.com MERKURY CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Banegas, Juan Banegas, and Santos Vega and other similarly-situated individuals v. Merkury Corporation, d/b/a Merkury Development, Paul A. Tolles, and Nicholas A. Crognale, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-22785 (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2014),seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Merkury Corporation is a construction company doing business as Merkury Development. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MICHIGAN: Bid for Protective Order in Suit vs. MDOC Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert H. Cleland denied a motion for a protective order in JOHN DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-14356, (E.D. Mich.). A copy of Judge Cleland's August 1, 2014 opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/ns4S3Gfrom Leagle.com. The Plaintiffs in the case have sought a protective order governing Defendants' interviews with putative class members and potential prisoner witnesses. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants engaged in abusive practices by sending Assistant Attorneys General ("AAGs") to interview prisoner witnesses regarding Plaintiffs' allegations of sexual assault by adult prisoners and Michigan Department of Corrections (MDO") personnel. "The court is aware of the possibility that certain interviewees may have falsely denied sexual abuse because of a lack of trust between the interviewees and the AAGs, fear of negative repercussions resulting from such a disclosure, or a host of other, more personal, reasons. . . . However, this case is still in the earliest of stages -- a scheduling order has not yet been issued and discovery has not yet commenced in earnest. Based on the facts currently before it, the court is not convinced that Plaintiffs' proposed broad protective order is necessary," Judge Cleland concluded. JOHN DOE 1, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty, Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah A. LaBelle. JOHN DOE 2, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty, Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah A. LaBelle. JOHN DOE 3, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty, Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah A. LaBelle. JOHN DOE 4, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty, Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah A. LaBelle. JOHN DOE 5, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty, Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah A. LaBelle. JOHN DOE 6, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty, Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah A. LaBelle. JOHN DOE 7, Plaintiff, represented by Beth M. Rivers, Pitt, Dowty, Cary S. McGehee, Pitt, McGehee, Edward A. Macey, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Jennifer B. Salvatore, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Michael L. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee, Nakisha N. Chaney, Nacht, Roumel, Salvatore, Blanchard & Walker, P.C., Peggy G. Pitt, Pitt, McGehee & Deborah A. LaBelle. Michigan Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. Rick Snyder, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. Daniel H. Heyns, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. THOMAS FINCO, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. Dennis Straub, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. RANDY TREACHER, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. WILLIE SMITH, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. HEIDI WASHINGTON, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. MARY BERGHUIS, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. PAUL KLEE, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. JOHN PRELESNIK, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. CATHLEEN STODDARD, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. CINDI S CURTIN, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. DAVID BERGH, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. JEFFREY WOODS, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. ROBERT NAPEL, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. KENNETH MCKEE, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Grossi, Michigan Dept of Attorney General, Heather S. Meingast, MI Department of Attorney General, Mark E. Donnelly, Michigan Department of Attorney General & Michael F. Murphy, MI Dept of Attorney General. MIDWEST IRRIGATION: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alfonso Vergara Jr., and Alexander Vergara, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Midwest Irrigation Company, LLC, and Chris Richards, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05813 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Midwest Irrigation Company, LLC, provides irrigation and lighting services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. State Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 Facsimile: (312) 853-1459 E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org - and - Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 513-9555 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com NATE'S AUTO: Faces "Yunio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Emilio Yunio Tavares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated v. Nate's Auto, Corp., and Nader Ahmed and Richard Morales, in their individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-05914 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Nate's Auto, Corp. is a gas station and repair shop lacated in the Bronx at 2400 East Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York 10461. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq. Michael John Borrelli, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com NATIONAL HOCKEY: Zelle Hofmann Files Head Injury Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP filed a class action lawsuit on July 29 against the National Hockey League arising from the effects of brain injuries caused by concussive and sub-concussive impacts suffered by former NHL players. Jon Rohloff, who was a defenseman for the Boston Bruins from 1994-1997, is the Plaintiff and Class representative. According to the lawsuit, "[f]ormer NHL players are uniting to send one resounding message: they signed up to play hockey knowing that they might get injured and dinged, but they did not sign up for brain damage." Over the course of an NHL season, a player sustains hundreds of hits to the head. These concussive and sub-concussive impacts, when multiplied over the course of an NHL career, result in impaired brain function or deadly brain disease. The lawsuit sets forth several allegations, including: The NHL, for decades, failed to inform, warn, or protect its players from repetitive mild traumatic brain injuries resulting from concussive and sub-concussive blows to the head; The NHL refused to institute policies and protocols to protect its players from concussive and sub-concussive injuries; Rather than inform its players regarding the risks of head injuries, the NHL openly encouraged severely injurious conduct such as fighting and extreme violence as a regular part of the game. In fact, the NHL did not simply allow fighting and violence -- it promoted, regulated, and profited from it; and The NHL concealed scientific evidence about the health risks and consequences associated with head injuries received while playing in the NHL. The lawsuit seeks medical monitoring, injunctive relief, and financial compensation related to his chronic injuries, medical costs, financial losses, and intangible losses suffered as a result of the NHL's misconduct. A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/n2Q1qN Further information can be provided by Michael R. Cashman -- mcashman@zelle.com -- a senior partner at Zelle Hofmann. Plaintiff and the Class are also represented by Richard M. Hagstrom, a senior partner at Zelle Hofmann, as well as Zelle Hofmann attorney Shawn Stuckey, a retired NFLer who played with the Buccaneers, Patriots and Vikings. The firm has a rich tradition of caring for and protecting the rights of former pro and college players in cases against the NFL, NCAA, and NFLPA. Plaintiff and the class are also represented by Lew Remele, Scott Andresen and Jeff Klobucar at the Bassford Remele law firm. About Zelle Hofmann Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP -- http://www.zelle.com-- is a national litigation and dispute resolution law firm with offices in Boston, Dallas, London, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. The Firm excels at handling sports-related disputes, insurance, antitrust and other complex litigation on both a national and global scale. The Firm also has an affiliate office in Beijing, People's Republic of China. NEUSTAR INC: Faces Securities Lawsuit by Pension System in Va. -------------------------------------------------------------- NeuStar, Inc. faces a securities lawsuit by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division), according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System (the Plaintiff), individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) against the Company and certain of the Company's senior executive officers. The complaint asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased the Company's securities between April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive relief. NEW FOOD: Faces "De Los Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------- Andres De Los Santos, Domingo Franco, Angel Rodriguez, Ramon Santos, and Jose Ramon Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, JCA Food Corp. d/b/a Metfood, JJC Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, SWF Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, Mother Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown, Jason Ferreira and Jose Ferreira, Case No. 2:14-cv-04541 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are chain of supermarkets owned and operated by Jason Ferreira and Jose Ferreira. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. STEVEN J. MOSER P.C. 3 School Street, Suite 207B Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 Facsimile: (516) 882-5420 E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com * * * Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that five ex-employees of supermarket chain Foodtown filed a putative class action in New York federal court on July 30 alleging the company and its affiliates faked wage statements to avoid paying overtime to employees in five of its New York stores. Andres de los Santos, Domingo Franco, Angel Rodriguez, Ramon Santos and Jose Ramon Lopez claim New Food Corp. and others didn't pay them for hours worked beyond the company's overtime limit and that it paid some employees a straight rate for overtime hours worked instead of the correct rate. Plaintiffs want to represent a class including all hourly employees who have worked at the grocery stores at any time up to six years before the filing of the complaint. They are seeking damages of $100 for every work week that each violation has occurred, up to $2,500 per employee, along with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The defendants allegedly compensated employees for overtime and straight wages earned beyond the minimum wage with cash payments made off the books. "The defendants' method of evading detection was equally simple," the Fair Labor Standards Act complaint states. "They fabricated wage and hour records to feign compliance with wage and hour laws." The individual plaintiffs are a group of grocery clerks, dairy department and maintenance workers, and other in-store employees, according to court papers. Each individual plaintiff was allegedly required to work more than 40 hours per week during the relevant time period. The individual plaintiffs, who sometimes worked more than 60 hours per week, were discharged between April 2013 and July 2014, the suit says. The plaintiffs lodged the claims against the Ferreira Enterprise, consisting of five supermarkets doing business as Ferreira Foodtown, which is owned and operated by Jason and Jose Ferreira, according to the suit. Before summer 2013, the stores operated as Metfood. The defendants never gave the individual plaintiffs accurate statements of wages with each payment, as required by New York state laws, the complaint says; instead, they provided them with envelopes that indicated in writing the amount of cash inside. The FLSA and New York state laws require employers to pay overtime at one and a half times an employee's regular rate for all hours worked past 40 per week, according to the complaint. The New York Labor Law requires an additional hour's pay at the basic minimum hourly rate for any day where the spread of hours -- the interval between the start and end of an employee's work day -- exceeds 10 hours, plaintiffs claim. Employees may recover statutory damages of $50, up to a total of $2,500, for each week in which they don't receive the required wage notice, according to the suit. The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, spread of hour pay, statutory damages under New York law for wage statement and notice violations, certification of the state law claims as class actions, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and court costs, and additional injunctive and equitable relief. Plaintiffs are represented by Steven John Moser of Steven J. Moser PC. The case is Andres de los Santos et al. v. New Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown et al., case number 1:14-cv-04541, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. NEW JERSEY: Labor Dept Accused of Harassing Laid-Off Workers ------------------------------------------------------------ New Jersey used a "deliberate strategy" to deny more than 10,000 people unemployment benefits, harasses laid-off workers who seek legal representation, and uses "sophisticated" questions to be able to criminally prosecute people who apply for unemployment, a laid-off worker and his attorneys claim in a class action lawsuit. Ranulfo Postrero and Alan H. Schorr & Associates sued the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, in Camden County Chancery Court. Schorr & Associates, of Cherry Hill, says it is one of the few law firms in New Jersey that specialize in unemployment law. Its client Postrero applied for unemployment insurance. They claim that New Jersey has deliberately denied due process to people who apply for unemployment benefits. Not only that, the plaintiffs say, New Jersey "deliberately removed from claimant notices a statement advising that they had the right to counsel. Yet, all employers still receive such a notice." The complaint states: "The process of applying for and receiving unemployment benefits has evolved into an extremely legally complicated process. The Department of Labor ('DOL') has many tools at its disposal for disqualifying employees for benefits, and has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years in terms of asking questions that elicit responses that unwittingly disqualify unrepresented claimants. According to DOL statistics provided via an OPRA [Open Public Records Act] request, during the fiscal year of July 2012-June 2013 alone 47,560 appeals were taken from initial unemployment decisions made by the Department of Labor. Over 13,000 of those initial decisions denying benefits were found on appeal to be incorrect. Not only does the Department of Labor utilize testimony from initial unemployment interviews for the purpose of disqualification, but sometimes this testimony can be forwarded to prosecutors for criminal prosecution. "Against this complicated and sophisticated legal backdrop is a deliberate strategy by the Department of Labor to deprive unemployment claimants representation by legal counsel of their choice. Over the past few years, the Department of Labor has deliberately removed from claimant notices a statement advising that they had the right to counsel. Yet, all employers still receive such a notice. Only claimants have been deprived of the proper notice. In addition, claims examiners routinely discourage and harass claimants who wish to be represented by attorneys. The Department of Labor has turned a deaf ear on our complaints, leaving no choice but to file this complaint seeking to compel the Department of Labor to cease its efforts to prevent attorney participation and to compel the Department of Labor to reinstate its practice of properly notifying claimants of their right to counsel." The plaintiffs seek class certification, preservation of records, a corrective injunction, and damages for constitutional violations. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan H. Schorr, Esq. ALAN H. SCHORR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 5 Split Rock Drive Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: (856) 874-9090 Facsimile: (856) 874-9080 E-mail: SchorrLawNJ@aol.com NEW YORK CITY: DOT Fails to Construct Accessible Ramps, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Independence Of The Disabled, New York, a nonprofit organization; Dustin Jones, an individual; Myrna Driffin, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The City Of New York, New York City Department Of Transportation, and Polly Trottenberg, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05884 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to construct accessible sidewalks, curb ramps, and neighborhoods denies persons with mobility and vision disabilities meaning access to the City's program of public sidewalks and pedestrian routes in these neighborhoods in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York Human Rights Law. Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York is founded in 1978, it is a consumer-based, non-profit organization, providing services and advocacy toward independent living for individuals with disabilities. The City Of New York and New York City Department Of Transportation are the public entities responsible for installing, repairing, and maintaining all pedestrian rights-of-way along New York City sidewalks and crosswalks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Lauren Zablocki, Esq. Daniel L. Brown, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 634-3082 Facsimile: (212) 655-1761 E-mail: azablocki@sheppardmullin.com dlbrown@sheppardmullin.com - and - Julia Miriam Pinover, Esq. Rebecca Juliet Rodgers, Esq. DISABILITIES RIGHT ADVOCATES 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 644-8644 Facsimile: (212) 644-8636 E-mail: jpinover@dralegal.org rrodgers@dralegal.org - and - Sherrill M. Kurland, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street, Room 4-114 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2605 Facsimile: (212) 356-2019 E-mail: skurland@law.nyc.gov NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to face a consolidated antitrust suit over fuel surcharges, according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the company and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a class action. The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration. The company believes the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. The company does not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on the company's financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. A lawsuit containing similar allegations against the company and four other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling agreement entered into in August 2008, and most recently extended in August 2013. OMNICARE INC: Faces TCPA Violation Suit in California Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Omnicare, Inc. faces a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On June 2, 2014, a complaint captioned Charles Lee on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 14-CIV-1335 was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff brought the action individually and on behalf of a similarly situated class of plaintiffs. The plaintiff alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by improperly calling cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. OMNICARE INC: Dismissal of Ky. Securities Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- The dismissal of a securities suit pending against Omnicare Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky is under appeal, according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v. Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10, 2007 through August 5, 2010 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with alleged false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's compliance with federal and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations. On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al. was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Plaintiffs allege substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are alleged in the Ansfield complaint. Both complaints seek unspecified money damages. The court has appointed lead counsel and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 11, 2012. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 16, 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims with prejudice. On April 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit appealing the District Court's order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The parties completed oral argument before the Sixth Circuit on January 30, 2014. OMNICARE INC: Appeals Reversal of Order Junking Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Omnicare Inc. filed its brief in support of an appeal against the reversal of an order dismissing a consolidated securities lawsuit against in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The amended consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought their shares in the Company's public offering in December 2005. The complaint contained claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements) by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, prospects, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the district court dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. On July 14, 2011, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint. This complaint asserts a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public offering. The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration statement contained false and misleading statements regarding Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with three of Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its suppliers, and its provision of pharmacist consultant services. On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the docket. On March 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 23, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. On June 6, 2013, the Company petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc was denied on July 23, 2013. On October 4, 2013 the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On March 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. On June 5, 2014, the Company filed its Brief in Support of Appeal in the United States Supreme Court. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Court OKs Stipulation in "Kress" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Troy L. Nunley signed a joint stipulation and order on August 1, 2014, in the case captioned SAMUEL BRANDON KRESS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Defendant, CASE NO. 08-CV-00965 TLN/AC, (E.D. Cal.). Under the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/PJiMp4from Leagle.com, the Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed to certain terms regarding the class action administrator and Notice of Pendency of Class Action including: 1. Garden City Group will serve as the class action administrator for the Senior Associate Class. 2. Plaintiffs will be responsible for the costs associated with the service of notice to the Senior Associate Class by the Garden City Group, except that Defendant will be responsible for Garden City Group's costs of emailing the notice to the Senior Associate Class. 3. The Notice of Pendency of Class Action Against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Notice) and Election to be Excluded Form ("Exclusion Form") is approved for service upon the Senior Associate Class members. 4. The e-mail address from which the claims administrator will send the Notice and Exclusion Form, and where completed Exclusion Forms may be returned by email will be: PwC_Overtime_Litigation_Class Administrator@tgcginc.com The subject line of the email will be: "PwC Senior Associate Class Action (2003-2013): Notice of Overtime Suit and Optional Exclusion Form." 5. PwC agrees that it will not intentionally track or monitor the emails from Garden City Group to the Senior Associate Class members, and that it will not intentionally track or monitor any emails sent from the recipient Senior Associate Class members to Garden City Group. PwC also agrees that it will not initiate any mass communications or postings with Senior Associate Class members regarding the Notice itself, the fact that the Notice is being sent, or the Senior Associate's right to remain in the class at any point. However, PwC personnel is not precluded from responding to inquiries from Senior Associate Class members regarding these subjects. 6. Senior Associate Class members who wish to opt-out of the class must do so by timely signing and mailing or emailing the completed Exclusion Form to Garden City Group. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP, William A. Baird, Esq., Agoura Hills, California KESSLER TOPAZ, MELTZER & CHECK LLP Peter A. Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- PHV Monique Myatt Galloway -- mgalloway@ktmc.com -- PHV Radnor, PA. LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER Steven Elster, Concord, CA, WYNNE LAW FIRM, Edward Wynne -- EWynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- Greenbrae, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Norman C. Hile -- nhile@orrick.com -- Julie A. Totten -- jatotten@orrick.com -- David A. Prahl, Sacramento, CA. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Daniel J. Thomasch -- dthomasch@gibsondunn.com -- Lauren J. Elliot -- lelliot@gibsondunn.com -- New York, New York, Michele L. Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Irvine, Ca, Julian W. Poon -- jpoon@gibsondunn.com -- Alexander K. Mircheff -- amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- Los Angeles, Ca, Attorneys for Defendant. QR ENERGY: Faces "Hoefgen" Suit Over Illegal Sale of Partnership ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel R. Hoefgen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alan Smith, John Campbell Jr., Donald Wolf, Stephen Thorington, Donald Powell, Richard Herbert, Toby Neugebauer, S. Wil Vanloh, Jr., QR Energy LP, and QRE GP, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-02195 (S.D. Tex., July 30, 2014), is brought for their breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to sell the Partnership to Breitburn Energy Partners L.P., Breitburn GP, LLC, and Boom Merger Sub, LLC by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. The Defendants own and operate an oil and natural gas production company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. The Bilek Law Firm LLP 700 Louisiana, Ste 3950 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-7720 Facsimile: (713) 227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Connie Patterson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 05882 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. is a family owned business that operates one of the largest furniture retailers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 564-5468 E-mail: jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com - and - Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN,LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com RIVERBAY CORP: Court Certifies Subclasses in "Ramirez" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs bring the action captioned ROSALY RAMIREZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. RIVERBAY CORP., ET AL., Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 2367 (JGK), (S.D. N.Y.) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq., claiming various violations of their right to receive a minimum wage and overtime compensation. The plaintiffs are current and former hourly employees of RiverBay Corp. On December 20, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. The plaintiffs now move for certification of three proposed NYLL Subclasses pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. District Judge John G. Koeltl, in an opinion and order dated August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/EYXiVofrom Leagle.com, granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification. "The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied for Subclasses 2 and 3, and the plaintiffs' motion to certify these Subclasses is therefore granted," he said. "The plaintiffs should provide a proposed order for class notice by August 15, 2014. The defendants may provide any objections and response by August 29, 2014," Judge Koeltl added. RONAN, MT: Insurance to Cover Class Action v. Police Department --------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Strickland, writing for Valley Journal, reports that insurance will cover the cost of a class action lawsuit filed June 3 against the City of Ronan, Ronan Police Department, and the town's leadership. City Attorney Kathleen O'Rourke Mullins told city council members in a July 21 meeting that she will relay costs for legal services to the city's insurance provider. The cost for Mullins' services mounted from her $1,500 regular monthly fee to more $4,570 as the city tackled litigation. The City has turned future work on the lawsuit over to a Missoula law firm. The lawsuit was filed by Anthony Chaney, who claims he was arrested in July 2013 by Trevor Wadsworth, an officer who was allegedly not authorized to act as a police officer at the time. Trevor Wadsworth's father, Dan Wadsworth, was the longtime police chief at the time of the arrest. A few days after the incident Dan Wadsworth's law enforcement certifications were removed by the Montana Public Safety Officer Standards and Training (POST) Council for allegedly falsifying Trevor's application to the Montana Law Enforcement Academy. The lawsuit claims as many as 100 people may have been victim of illegal arrest by officers who were not properly trained or certified. It seeks punitive damages in the case, which are capped at $10 million. In June questions arose about whether or not the Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority would cover the cost of the lawsuit because the insurance company noted in its August 2013 board meeting that the City of Ronan had been notified that problems presented by Dan Wadsworth might result in loss of coverage. Though the company will cover the attorney's fees for the city, O'Rourke Mullins noted that the City of Ronan is only defending some of the defendants in the case. "I answered on behalf of Kim (Aipperspach) individually because he was the mayor and is still the mayor," O'Rourke Mullins said. "I had the authority to do that and from the research I've done so far he was acting under the scope of his duties as mayor. I did not answer for Dan Wadsworth or Trevor Wadsworth, or appear for them in any way because I had no authority to do that." ROSBOROUGH PARTNERS: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cipriano Rea-Vara on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Rosborough Partners, Inc., Philip A. Rosborough, individually and Barbara Rosborough, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05859 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rosborough Partners, Inc. is engaged in landscaping business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. State Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 Facsimile: (312) 853-1459 E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org - and - Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 513-9555 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ By Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on July 30 disclosed that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit, New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund, et al. v. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, et al., Civ. No. 08-5093-LAP, asserts claims against The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, plc, RBS Financial Products Inc. f/k/a Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc., RBS Acceptance Inc. f/k/a Greenwich Capital Acceptance, Inc., RBS Securities Inc. f/k/a Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc. d/b/a RBS Greenwich Capital, and RBS Holdings USA Inc. f/k/a Greenwich Capital Holdings Inc., Robert J. McGinnis, Carol P. Mathis, Joseph N. Walsh, III, John C. Anderson and James M. Esposito (collectively, the "Defendants"), relating to certain mortgage-backed securities (the "Litigation"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED (i) of the pendency of this action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired, at any time, interest in any certificate in any of the following Harborview Mortgage Loan Trusts: Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust, Series ("Harborview") 2006-4, Harborview 2006-5, Harborview 2006-6, Harborview 2006-7, Harborview 2006-8, Harborview 2006-9, Harborview 2006-10, Harborview 2006-11, Harborview 2006-12, Harborview 2006-14, Harborview 2007-1, Harborview 2007-2, Harborview 2007-5 and Harborview 2007-7 (the "Settlement Class") except for certain persons or entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition; and that a proposed settlement has been reached in this Litigation. A hearing will be held with respect to the settlement on October 28, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 12A, New York, New York. The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things, (i) whether the proposed settlement of the claims asserted in this Litigation, pursuant to which Defendants will cause to be deposited the sum of two hundred and seventy-five million U.S. dollars ($275,000,000.00) into a settlement fund in exchange (among other things) for the dismissal of the Litigation and a release of claims against the Defendants and other related persons and entities, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, (ii) whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (iii) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as against the Settlement Class; (iv) whether the Court should enter a bar order prohibiting members of the Settlement Class from pursuing or commencing any action against the Defendants or other related persons or entities with respect to the Released Claims; (v) whether the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (vi) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with the Litigation is reasonable and should be approved. If you purchased or otherwise acquired certificates in the trusts listed above, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of the settlement fund if you submit a claim form postmarked no later than November 14, 2014, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you have the right to object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting no later than October 14, 2014, a written objection in accordance with the procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been mailed to persons or entities known to be potential members of the Settlement Class, and that is available at www.HarborviewMBSSettlement.com You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by submitting no later than September 30, 2014, a written request for exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with the procedures described in the more detailed notice. If the settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the settlement and the Court's final order and judgment, including the releases provided for in the final order and judgment, unless you submit a request to be excluded. This notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the Litigation and the settlement. A detailed notice describing the Litigation, the proposed settlement, and the rights of members of the Settlement Class to appear in Court at the Final Approval Hearing, to request to be excluded from the Settlement Class and/or to object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses has been mailed to persons or entities known to be potential Settlement Class Members. You may obtain a copy of this notice, a proof of claim form, or other information by writing to the following address or calling the following telephone number. Harborview MBS Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 43253 Providence, RI 02940-3253 Toll Free: (866) 893-8437 info@HarborviewMBSSettlement.com or by downloading the forms from www.HarborviewMBSSettlement.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed notice referenced above and a proof of claim form, may be made to plaintiffs' Lead Counsel: COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Joel P. Laitman, Esq. Christopher Lometti, Esq. Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. 88 Pine Street, 14 Fourteenth Floor New York, N.Y. 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Email: jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com clometti@cohenmilstein.com meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com Steven J. Toll, Esq. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com By Order of the Clerk of the Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York SECURITY LIFE: Court Dismisses "Ackley" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez dismissed a third amended complaint in the class action captioned ANDREW NATHAN ACKLEY, Plaintiff, v. SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Minnesota Corporation, and SECURITY AMERICAN FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. C13-432-RSM, (W.D. Wash.). In his complaint, Mr. Ackley brings claims on behalf of himself and other Washington residents who purchased dental insurance plans from SLICA between 2009 and 2012. He alleges that SLICA sold dental insurance policies that were not filed lawfully with the Washington State Office of Insurance Commissioner (OIC), and that the policies were not approved for sale within the state. Mr. Ackley has filed four iterations of his complaint. He filed the first Class Action Complaint on February 4, 2013, the First Amended Class Action Complaint on March 26, 2013, the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on March 26, 2013, and finally, the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on September 30, 2013. SLICA asked the Court to dismiss the the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. "Having had four opportunities to state a cognizable claim for relief, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is warranted," ruled Judge Martinez. "The Court has broad discretion to refuse leave to amend where it has already given a plaintiff an opportunity to remedy a defective complaint. . . . Neither the TAC nor Ackley's responsive briefing indicates that a fifth opportunity to amend would remedy the defects noted by the Court in both the prior and current Orders." A copy of Judge Martinez's July 31, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/DYkWfOfrom Leagle.com. Andrew Nathan Ackley, Plaintiff, represented by Courtney K. Ackley, ACKLEY LAW GROUP, PLLC & Thomas Charles Bierlein -- tom@bierleinlaw.com -- The Bierlein Law Office, P.S. Security Life Insurance Company of America, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Diana Robbs -- carolyn.bilanko@bgllp.com -- BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP & Curt Roy Hineline -- curt.hineline@bgllp.com -- BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP. SEI INVESTMENTS: Bares Updates on Suits Related to Stanford Trust ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEI Investments Company provides updates on six lawsuits filed against it in Louisiana over role of SEI Private Trust Company in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company, according to SEI's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. One of the five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a defendant and, was certified as a class in December 2012. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant. All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action against SEI and SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act. The class action originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC for an alleged violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. Two of the other five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana, against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all the actions are purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank. Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge were removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On August 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order and judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI in the two removed actions were preempted by federal law and the court dismissed these cases with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling, and on March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court and remanded the actions for further proceedings. On July 18, 2012, SEI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit to permit the claims against SEI to proceed. SEI believes that the trial court correctly concluded that the claims against SEI were barred by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and requested that the Supreme Court reinstate that dismissal. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeal and on February 26, 2014 the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to that complaint has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in the remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC an extension to respond to the filings. SEI and SPTC filed exceptions in the class action pending in East Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part as to the other exceptions. SEI and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge class action, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against certain named plaintiffs which the Court stated would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on the class certification motion. The Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing on class certification on September 20, 2012. By oral decision on December 5, 2012 and later entered in a judgment signed on December 17, 2012 that was subsequently amended, the Court in East Baton Rouge certified a class to be composed of persons who purchased any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009; persons who renewed any SIB CD in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009; or any person for whom the Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009. On January 30, 2013, SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the judgments that stated SEI's and SPTC's intention to move to stay the litigation. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they ask the Court to allow them to amend the petition in this case to add additional facts that were developed during discovery and adding claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 15, 2013, SEI filed a motion for new trial, or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the Court's order allowing amendment. On February 22, 2013, SEI filed a motion to stay proceedings in view of the pending Supreme Court case. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by filing an exception. On March 11, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed a notice of removal removing the case to the Middle District of Louisiana and on March 18, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed answers. On March 13, 2013, SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag- along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, a motion for expedited briefing schedule, expedited status conference and expedited consideration of their motion to remand, a motion for leave to file under seal and a motion for order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(b) requiring removing defendants to supplement federal court record with certified copy of state court record. These motions are now fully briefed. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a motion that the court decline to adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of removal jurisdiction in an April 12, 2013 order that also dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue filed on April 9, 2013 by one of the insurers. On April 1, 2013, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI) filed a motion to remand and sever claims, and a response to that motion by the insurers and opposition to that motion by the plaintiffs were filed on April 22, 2013. Along with the briefing in the Middle District of Louisiana, on March 13, 2013, SEI notified the MDL of this case as a potential tag-along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL that they had filed a motion to remand and asked the panel to decline to issue a conditional transfer order. On March 29, 2013, the MDL issued a conditional transfer order (CTO). On April 18, 2013, OFI filed a motion to vacate the CTO or, in the alternative, stay any ruling to transfer the matter until after the Middle District of Louisiana ruled on OFI's motion to remand and sever. Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the CTO on April 19, 2013. SEI's responses to those motions were filed on May 9, 2013. On June 12, 2013, the MDL Panel issued an order notifying the parties that on July 25, 2013, it would consider, without oral argument, Plaintiffs' and OFI's motions to vacate the CTO. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel affirmed the CTO and transferred the matter against SEI to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; the MDL Panel also severed the claims against OFI and remanded those claims to the Middle District of Louisiana. On September 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion requesting a status conference with the Court to address the status of all pending motions. On October 4, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review the MDL Panel's transfer Order and on February 14, 2014, the Court denied the petition. SHERIDAN LABS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Deceptive Billing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lorri Fishman and Kristine Lowry-Deturk individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sheridan Labs, Inc. and Phoenix Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05793 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2014), arises from the Defendants' design and use of deceptive and misleading marketing practices intending to trick and cause consumers, such as Plaintiffs and the Class, to unknowingly and automatically enroll in unauthorized membership or subscription programs whereby Defendants charged and continued to charge consumers' credit cards without their knowledge, information, or consent. Sheridan Labs, Inc. is a Nevada corporation and health and medical product manufacturer with its principal place of business at 14953 S Heritage crest Way Ste C, Bluffdale, Utah. Phoenix Labs Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of business at 2551 East Ave S. Suite G100 Palmdale, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC 211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (973) 877-3845 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com SISTERS OF CHARITY: Sued in D. Kansas Over Violation of ERISA ------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Geiger and Michelle Hunget v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Separation Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Separation Benefit Plan, Prime HealthCare Services, Inc., Prime Healthcare Services - Saint John Leavenworth, LLC; and Prime Healthcare Services - Providence, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02378 (D. Kan., July 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc. is a faith- based, nonprofit health care organization operating 11 hospitals, four safety net clinics, one children's mental health treatment center, and other health care facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Peters,Esq James J. Cramer, Esq. PAYNE & JONES, CHARTERED 11000 King Street Overland Park, KS 66210-1286 Telephone: (913) 469-4100 Facsimile: (913) 469-8182 E-mail: tpeters@paynejones.com jcramer@paynejones.com SOGRO INC: Motion to Dismiss "Velasco" Class Action Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge C.N. Clevert, Jr., denied a motion to dismiss the case captioned ANGELA VELASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOGRO, INC., d/b/a Budget Host Diplomat Motel, Defendant, CASE NO. 08-C-0244, (E.D. Wis.) Previously, the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment and the case appeared ready for trial. However, the named class representative's unwillingness to further prosecute the case has delayed matters. Before the court were three motions related to substitution of the initial plaintiff. Briefing on five motions in limine was stayed pending resolution of these motions. In his order dated July 29, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/pC3d03from Leagle.com, Judge Clevert denied Sogro's motion to dismiss, motion for sanctions, and motion to decertify. Sogro's motions in limine are granted as to motions 1, 2, 4, and 5 and denied as to motions 3 and 6. A telephonic hearing on Velasco's motions in limine and to set further proceedings is scheduled for September 3, 2014, at 3:00 p.m., Judge Celvert held. The court will place the call. Any reply briefs regarding remaining motions in limine must be filed no later than August 27, 2014. Angela Velasco, Plaintiff, represented by Allison A Krumhorn -- allison@caclawyers.com -- The Consumer Advocacy Center PC, Lance A Raphael -- Lance@caclawyers.com -- The Consumer Advocacy Center PC & Stacy M Bardo, The Consumer Advocacy Center PC. Sogro Inc, Defendant, represented by David O Yuen, Brown Udell & Pomerantz Ltd & James K Borcia -- jborcia@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler LLP. SONY COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over Blurry Graphics of Killzone Game --------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Ladore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:14-cv-03530-JCS (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2014) arises from the alleged deceptive marketing of Sony's Killzone: Shadow Fall video game for the PlayStation 4 video game console. After the game's release, gamers quickly noticed and complained that Killzone's multiplayer graphics were blurry to the point of distraction, Mr. Ladore contends. He adds that the cause of this blurriness went unknown until a well-respected video game Web site reported that Killzone's multiplayer did not actually provide "1080p" graphics as advertised. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Foster City, California. Sony Computer was founded in 1994 and has become a household name in consumer gaming technology. Sony Computer is a wholly owned subsidiary of non-party Sony Corporation of America, Inc., and its California offices serve as the headquarters for all of its parent's North American operations, including the sale and marketing of Sony's video game software and hardware generally, and the Killzone video game in particular. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Eisen, Esq. EDELSON PC 555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 533-4100 Facsimile: (213) 947-4251 E-mail: meisen@edelson.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq. Amir Missaghi, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com bthomassen@edelson.com amissaghi@edelson.com STAPLES INC: Illegally Procure Consumer Reports, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Mariah Roman, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Staples, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation, Staples The Office Superstore, LLC. a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company, Staples The Office Superstore East, Inc. a Massachusetts Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61731 (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide proper disclosure to job applicants and employees regarding their procurement of consumer reports about such applicants and employees, and fails to obtain the required authorization to obtain such consumer reports prior to doing so. Staples, Inc. operates more than 1,500 retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Jefferey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: NYJG@aol.com TAISHAN GYPSUM: Sued in La. Over Sale of Defective Drywall ---------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo and Carmen Amorin, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council; Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. f/k/a Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd.; Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd.; Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co.; China National Building Material Co., Ltd.; Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd.; China National Building Materials Group Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01727 (E.D. La., July 29, 2014), alleges that the Defendants took advantage of the American marketplace by selling defective drywall throughout the country but then walked away from responsibility for their products after being called to task for the injuries they caused to thousands of American property owners. The Defendants are foreign corporations doing business in several States, including but not limited to, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia. They manufactured, sold, distributed, marketed and placed within the stream of commerce gypsum drywall. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Davis, Esq. Leonard A. Davis, Esq. Stephen J. Herman, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 E-mail: ldavis@hhklawfirm.com - and - Arnold Levin, Esq. Fred S. Longer, Esq. Matthew C. Gaughan, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: Alevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Dawn M. Barrios, Esq. BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP 701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650 New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 524-3300 Facsimile: (504) 524-3313 E-mail: Barrios@bkc-law.com - and - Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC 425 W. Airline Highway, Suite B Laplace, LA 70068 Telephone: (985) 536-1186 Facsimile: (985) 536-6445 E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com - and - Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 25 Flagler Street, 8th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com - and - Bruce William Steckler, Esq. STECKLER, LLP 12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com - and - Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq. COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Cora Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 - and - Ben W. Gordon Jr., Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL Echsner & Proctor, P.A. 316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7000 Facsimile: (850) 435-7020 E-mail: bgordon@levinlaw.com - and - Hugh P. Lambert, Esq. LAMBERT AND NELSON 701 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-1750 Facsimile: (504) 529-2931 E-mail: hlambert@lambertandnelson.com - and - Gerald E. Meunier, Esq. GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & WARSHAUER, LLC 2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163-2800 Telephone: (504) 522-2304 Facsimile: (504) 528-9973 E-mail: gmeunier@gainsben.com - and - Jerrold Seth Parker, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP 3301 Bonita Beach Road Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 390-1000 Facsimile: (239) 390-0055 E-mail: Jerry@yourlawyer.com - and - Scott Wm. Weinstein, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 12800 University Drive, Suite 600 Ft. Meyers, FL 33907 Telephone: (239) 433-6880 Facsimile: (239) 433-6836 E-mail sweinstein@forthepeople.com - and - James Robert Reeves, Esq. Reeves & Mestayer, PLLC 160 Main Street Biloxi, MS 39530 Telephone: (228) 374-5151 Facsimile: (228) 374-6630 E-mail: jrr@attorneys4people.com - and - Christopher Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS, LLP 77 Water Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5002 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com - and - Richard J. Serpe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE Crown Center, Ste. 310 580 East Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510-2322 Telephone: (757) 233-0009 Facsimile: (757) 233-0455 E-mail: rserpe@serpefirm.com - and - Victor M. Diaz, Jr., Esq. V.M. DIAZ AND PARTNERS, LLC 119 Washington Ave, Suite 402 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 704-3200 Facsimile: (305) 538-4928 E-mail: victor@diazpartners.com - and - Richard S. Lewis, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, N.W, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com - and - Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 904, 15058 River Road Hahnville, LA 70057 Telephone: (985) 783-6789 Facsimile: (985) 783-1333 E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com - and - Anthony D. Irpino, Esq. IRPINO LAW FIRM 2216 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-1500 Facsimile: (504) 525-1501 E-mail: airpino@irpinolaw.com TARSADIA HOTEL: Court Awards Atty. Fees in Investors' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- TAMER SALAMEH, an individual, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TARSADIA HOTEL, a California Corporation, et. al., Defendants, CASE NO. 09CV2739-GPC(BLM), (S.D. Cal.), is a putative class action filed by investors in the Hard Rock Hotel San Diego against Tarsadia Defendants and others. The complaint alleges violations of federal and state securities laws and fraud based on misrepresentation and fraud by concealment against numerous defendants involved in the development of the Hard Rock. On March 25, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Tarsadia Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs; and denied Defendant Playground Destination Properties, Inc.'s motion for attorneys' fees. Specifically, the Court granted Defendants 5th Rock, LLC and MKP One, LLC's motion for attorneys' fees on the fraud causes of action based on the attorneys' fee provisions in a Purchase Contract, and denied the remaining Tarsadia Defendants' request for attorneys' fees on the federal and state securities causes of action based on the so-called RMA and UMA. The Court also denied Defendant Playground's motion for attorneys' fees based on Section 11(e) of the Securities Act of 1933. In the order, the Court ordered supplemental documentary evidence to determine what part of the attorneys' fees incurred in this case are attributable to the litigation arising out of the fraud causes of action under the Purchase Contract between the signatories. Defendants filed their supplemental response on April 11, 2014. Plaintiffs filed their supplemental response on April 25, 2014. In a supplemental order dated July 31, 2014, District Judge attorneys' fees and costs, and awarded Defendants 5th Rock and MKP One, LLC attorneys' fees in the amount of $405,371.25 which breaks down to $358,490.00 for work performed from December 14, 2009 through February 28, 2011, and $46,881.25 for attorneys' fees in connection with the instant request for attorneys' fees and for work performed in March and April 2011, November 2013 and March 2014. A copy of Judge Curiel's ruling is available at http://is.gd/UoQQJ7from Leagle.com. Tamar Salameh, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Real Estate 4 Hospitality, LLC, a California limited liability company; individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Mary L Wee Song, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Dolores Green, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Mikael Havluciyan, individually and as Co-Trustee of the Havluciyan Family Trust; individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Mitchell J Pereira, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Denis B Rothe, Jr, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Sadoux Kim, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Kerry L Steigerwalt, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Gary A Torretta, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Therese Havluciyan, individually and as Co-Trustee of the Havluciyan Family Trust; individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Barbara L Lubin, individually and as Co-Trustee of the Lubin Family Trust Dated March 26, 2002; individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Jeffrey E Lubin, individually and as Co-trustee of the Lubin Family Trust Dated March 26, 2002; individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Aleksey Kats, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Tazia Reyna, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Stuart M Wolman, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Christy Jeske, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Beth Steigerwalt, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Dale Curtis, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Robert Alvarenga, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Diana Kats, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. David R Bushy, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Charlene Schrufer, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Zondra Schmidt, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Cesar Mota, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Alexis Cosio, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP & Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP. Virginia Gallanosa, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Joey Clement, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Kevin Henry, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Andrew Paul, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Vito Micale, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Phillip Gutirrez, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Barbara Behrle, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Danon Slinkard, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Steven Paul, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Thomas Behrle, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Kim Henry, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Jose Gallanosa, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Sylvia Hoerr, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Matthew Hoerr, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J Aguirre, Aguirre & Severson, LLP & Maria C Severson, Aguirre and Severson, LLP. Tarsadia Hotel, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson. Tushar Patel, an individual, Defendant, represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson. B.U. Patel, an individual, Defendant, represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson. Gregory Casserly, an individual, Defendant, represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson. 5th Rock LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson. MPK One, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson. Playground Destination Properties, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Benjamin, Ballard Spahr, LLP & Thomas W McNamara, Ballard Spahr LLP. East West Bank, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by John Nadolenco, Mayer Brown LLP & Christopher Paul Murphy, Mayer Brown LLP. Gaslamp Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Frederick H Kranz, Jr, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP, Jonathan Saville Kitchen, Cox Castle & Nicholson & Lynn T Galuppo, Cox Castle & Nicholson. Bank Of America, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward M. Rosenfeld, Bryan Cave LLP & Benjamin J.B. Allen, Bryan Cave LLP. JP Morgan Chase, Defendant, represented by Sung-Min Christopher Yoo, AlvaradoSmith, APC. XBR Financial Services, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer A. Needs, Samuels, Green & Steel, LLP, Philip Wilton Green, Samuels Green & Steel LLP & Scott R. Albrecht, Samuels Green and Steel LLP. Erskine Corp, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Borman, Smaha Law Group & John L Smaha, Smaha Law Group. Independent Bank Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher Ray Ambrose, Ambrose Law Group LLC. Wintrust Financial Corporation, an Illinois corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher Craighead Bridwell, Schiff Hardin LLP. Spyglass Partners, Inc., Third Party, ThirdParty Plaintiff, Pro Se. TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Zenebe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Workou Zenebe, individually and no behalf of persons similarly situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-22811 (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The TJX Companies, Inc. is an American apparel and home goods company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Eric Leach, Esq. FEILER & LEACH 901 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134-3009 Telephone: (305) 441-8818 Facsimile: (305) 441-8081 E-mail: mel@flmlegal.com TRANSNET: High Court Reserves Judgment in Pensioners' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Enca reports that the High Court in Pretoria on July 29 reserved judgment in an application by two Transnet pensioners to sanction the institution of a R80-billion class action against the parastatal and their pension funds. Judgment was expected last week after Judge Ephraim Makgoba reserved judgment in the application by Johan Pretorius and Johan Kruger, who want to launch a class action on behalf of Transnet's 62,000 impoverished pensioners in an attempt to recover close to R80 billion in assets and interest. He said it was not an easy matter to deal with, but undertook to deliver judgment before Aug. 8. The group has accused Transnet of stripping the Transnet Pension Fund and Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund (TSBF) of its assets and mismanaging them to such an extent that the funds were unable to meet their obligations to members. They have also accused Transnet of attempting to dissolve the pension fund. Increases to pensions have been limited to two percent for close to the past decade, reducing most of the pensioners to poverty. The court was told that numerous pensioners only received R1 per month. Currently 80% of them earned less than R4,000 per month and 62% less than R2,500 per month. Most of them were between 70 and 90 years old and could no longer find employment. The vast majority of them often have to beg for the most basic means and a number of them have committed suicide as a direct result of finding themselves unable to live with dignity. About 30% of the Transnet pensioners are black. In 2001, Transnet exchanged government bonds worth R7.7 billion which earned the fund R1.2 billion in interest per year for shares in M-Cell which earned no dividends. The shares were sold in 2006 at a loss to TSBF of over R5.4 billion. R800 million in surplus funds, created by the reduction of member benefits, were also paid over to Transnet in 2000. The pension fund, Transnet and the ministers of finance and public enterprises have opposed the application, which they dismissed as being bad in law, of no substance and a waste of time, effort and money. Counsel for the public enterprises minister argued that the board of trustees of the funds were in a better position to claim on behalf of its members and that the pensioners had not yet exhausted all of their internal remedies. Advocate Jaap Cilliers SC, who represents the pensioners, said the "heart" of the case was that Transnet managed and controlled the fund. Transnet appointed four of the trustees and the chairman of the Board while the pensioners only appointed two trustees. "It is clear who controls this fund. Transnet controls it and then siphons off its assets so that it cannot meet its obligations," he said. The fund did not fall under the Pension Fund Act and the board of trustees failed to vote in favor of allowing the Act to apply, thereby excluding these poor elderly people of the privileges and rights they would have had under the Act, he said. "Some of their members receive R1 per month to live on after working for Transnet for a lifetime. "Yet instead of spending the little they have to help these poor pensioners, they spend hundreds of thousands of rands on legal costs to oppose the application. "Should the court now exclude these poor elderly people from approaching the court? If that is what the interest of justice demands I will be surprised," Mr. Cilliers said. TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Court Allows "Roppo" to File Amended Case -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edmond E. Chang dismissed a motion to dismiss the case captioned SABRINA ROPPO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Travelers Insurance Company, Defendant, NO. 13 C 05569, (N.D. Ill.). The action stems from a personal-injury suit filed by Plaintiff Sabrina Roppo, which is currently pending in Lake County, Illinois. The alleged tortfeasor in that suit is insured by the Defendant, Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, which is providing a defense. In this now-federal lawsuit, Ms. Roppo contends that Travelers intentionally concealed the alleged tortfeasor's policy limits by failing to disclose an excess umbrella policy for three months. Ms. Roppo sought to certify a class of "all Illinois persons who made a personal injury motor vehicle claims [sic] for accidents occurring after August 12, 1988 and had the Travelers Insurance Company misrepresent and conceal the actual policy limits of tortfeasor by not disclosing the excess or umbrella policy," asserting causes of action for (1) fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation of the policy limits and (2) an implied private right of action for violation of 215 ILCS 5/143.24b). Travelers filed a Notice of Removal of this action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, asserting that Ms. Roppo's action was removable under the Class Action Fairness Act. After removing the case to federal court, Travelers moved to dismiss Ms. Roppo's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For her part, Ms. Roppo moved to amend her complaint to add several local defendants (local as in they are Illinois citizens), and moved to remand, asserting that this Court does not properly have jurisdiction under CAFA. Ms. Roppo also requested that if the Court determines that Travelers has met its threshold burden for establishing subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, then she wants permission to amend her complaint and to take limited discovery to resolve factual issues raised by her motion to remand. In his memorandum opinion and order dated August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/5Z2Cinfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chang granted Ms. Roppo's Motion to Amend because it is early in the litigation. Travelers' Motion to Dismiss was terminated as moot. "But the Court does conclude that, even with the amended complaint, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, so Roppo's Motion to Remand is denied," Judge Chang said. "Finally, the Court does not permit Roppo additional discovery: Roppo has failed to show that the relevant exceptions, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3) or 1332(d)(4), to CAFA jurisdiction are applicable, or that additional discovery is necessary to determine whether one of those CAFA exceptions applies." Sabrina Roppo, Plaintiff, represented by Gene K. Moskowitz, Gene Moskowitz and Associates, Limited & Kent D. Sinson, Sinson Law Group, LLC. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey P. Lennard -- jeffrey.lennard@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Tiffany L. Amlot -- tiffany.amlot@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP. TRI TECH HOLDING: Faces Amended Securities Complaint in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tri-Tech Holding Inc. is facing an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for violating the Federal Securities Laws, according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2014. The case of Joy Singh, Individually and on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Tri-Tech Holding Inc., 13-CV- 9031-KMW, was filed on or about December 20, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint for violating the Federal Securities Laws in this putative class action generally alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's allegedly deficient disclosure and internal controls. The Complaint alleges that, when the market learned of the deficient disclosure and internal controls, the price of the Company's stock fell and trading was halted by the NASDAQ, causing substantial damage to class members. On behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased the Company's common stock between March 26, 2012 and December 12, 2013, the Complaint claims violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the putative class, as well as reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. On March 14, 2014, the Court appointed two groups of plaintiffs -- the "Tri-Tech Group" and the "Baker Group" -- as Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, without prejudice to the Company's right to challenge the adequacy, typicality, or ability of Lead Plaintiffs to represent the absent class members or the propriety of this case being certified as a class action. The Court appointed the Rosen Law Firm P.A. and Gainey McKenna & Egelston as Lead Counsel for all plaintiffs and the putative class. On June 3, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for violating the Federal Securities Laws. The Amended Complaint generally alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in that it lacked internal controls and improperly consolidated and included the financial results of the Company's affiliates even though the Company allegedly did not control these affiliates. The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and ten of the Company's current or former directors and officers. The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased the Company's securities between March 26, 2012 and December 12, 2013, and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of the putative class, as well as reasonable costs and expenses, including legal fees and expert fees. It asserts claims for (i) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) "controlling person" liability against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The deadline for the Company to move against or answer the Amended Complaint is August 4, 2014. TRULAND SYSTEMS: Union Workers Mull Class Action Over Back Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- WJLA, citing ABC7 News, reports that union workers at the now- defunct Truland Systems have consulted lawyers about pursuing a possible class-action lawsuit against their former employer. The key basis for that suit is a July 18 e-mail sent from Truland's president to employees -- just three days before the huge electrical contractor abruptly closed its' doors -- assuring them the company's finances were fine even though it was behind on its' payroll. Rob Trulan also promised in the note that "cash collections for the coming weeks are sufficient to cover payroll." As of July 30, some members of Local 26 of the Electrician's Union said they still hadn't been paid for weeks of work prior to Truland's shutdown. Bankruptcy petitions filed involving Reston-based Truland Systems are currently pending in D.C. federal court. UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Dismisses Tomz From Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES J. FITZPATRICK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNI-PIXEL, INC., REED KILLION, and JEFFREY W. TOMZ, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-1649, (S.D. Tex.) alleges violations of 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j (b), 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, during a proposed class period beginning on December 7, 2012, and ending on May 31, 2013. Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint, and Lead plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action complaint which includes a request for leave to amend. In a memorandum opinion and order dated July 25, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/CXIBLmfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Sim Lake granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the plaintiffs have stated claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j (b), 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, against defendants Uni-Pixel and Reed J. Killion arising from false and misleading forecasts regarding manufacturing capacity and commercial release of UniBoss attributed to Killion in a Uni- Pixel Press Release issued on February 26, 2013, and made by Killion in response to questions posed during an analyst conference call held on February 26, 2013, but that plaintiffs have failed to state claims for which relief may be granted against any defendant arising from other statements alleged to be false and misleading. The claims asserted against defendant Jeffrey w. Tomz are dismissed with prejudice, Judge Sim added. Charles J. Fitzpatrick, Plaintiff, represented by Tamar A. Weinrib -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom, Sara E. Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Sammy Ford, IV -- sford@abrahamwatkins.com -- Abraham Watkins Nichols Sorrels Agosto & Friend. Ravi Shapira, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Robin Bronzaft Howald -- rhowald@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, Tamar A. Weinrib -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom, Ronald Dean Gresham -- dean@paynemitchell.com - - Payne Mitchell Law Group & Sammy Ford, IV -- sford@abrahamwatkins.com -- Abraham Watkins Nichols Sorrels Agosto & Friend. Danee Thannoo, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Lionel Z Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, Marc I Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, Patrick V Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman, Robin Bronzaft Howald -- rhowald@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow Goldberg LLP, Tamar A. Weinrib -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Sammy Ford, IV -- sford@abrahamwatkins.com -- Abraham Watkins Nichols Sorrels Agosto & Friend. Uni-Pixel, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael John Biles -- mbiles@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Paul R Bessette -- pbessette@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP & Yusuf Ahmad Bajwa -- ybajwa@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP. Reed J. Killion, Defendant, represented by Michael John Biles, King & Spalding LLP, Paul R Bessette, King & Spalding LLP & Yusuf Ahmad Bajwa, King & Spalding LLP. UNILEVER NV: Deal Reached in Keratin Smoothing Kit Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Suave for its Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit in the amount of $10.25 million. "After more than a year and a half of arm's length and hard fought negotiations and two separate mediation sessions conducted with the assistance of Hon. Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.), the parties entered into a settlement agreement on February 7, 2014," the June 11 motion for final approval of settlement states. In exchange for dismissal of the three pending putative class actions and the releases, the defendants -- which include Unilever United States Inc., LEK Inc., and Conopco Inc. -- have agreed to provide $10.25 million to Dahl Administration LLC for the establishment of two separate settlement funds, consisting of a reimbursement fund of $250,000 and an injury fund of $10 million. The reimbursement fund will be available to any member of the settlement class who is seeking compensation, in the form of a one-time payment of $10 per person, for the purchase of the smoothing kit. The injury fund will seek to compensate any member of the defined settlement class who suffered bodily injury to his or her scalp as a result of using the smoothing kit, and did not timely request exclusion from the settlement class, according to the settlement. Class members who suffered smoothing kit injuries may submit a claim for reimbursement ranging from $40 to $25,000, depending on the extent of their injuries and proof of their treatment expenses. The named plaintiff, Sidney Reid, will receive a $10,000 incentive award and named plaintiffs Alisha Barnett, Dawn Damrow and Fran Pennel will receive incentive awards of $7,500 each. Class counsel has requested attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the total common fund made available to class members. The lawsuit was first filed in August 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after class members claims the defendants' smoothing kit caused them to suffer hair loss and/or scalp injuries. The plaintiffs claimed Unilever made false and misleading statements about the safety of the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which was recalled in May 2012. The plaintiffs are represented by Lori A. Fanning and Andrew Szot of Miller Law LLC; Peter Safirstein and Elizabeth S. Metcalf -- emetcalf@forthepeople.com -- of Morgan & Morgan PC; Christopher S. Polaszek -- cpolaszek@forthepeople.com -- of Morgan & Morgan PA; and Jana Eisinger of the Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC. The defendants are represented by Sondra A. Hemeryck and Paul J. Morency of Schiff Hardin LLP. The case was assigned to District Judge Ruben Castillo. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case number: 1:12-cv-06058 UNITIL CORP: Fitchburg Customers Appeal Denial of Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is yet to decide whether to allow a lawsuit against Unitil Corporation's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, to proceed as a class action, according to Unitil's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil Corporation's (the "Company") Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December, 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm. On September 4, 2009, the Court issued its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. As a result of this decision, the lawsuit would now proceed with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages; however, the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC"). The SJC accepted the matter for review, briefs have been submitted and oral arguments have been held. The decision of the SJC is pending. The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in Massachusetts Worcester County Superior Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The parties to this action have agreed to put this matter on hold pending the decision of the SJC in Bellermann. VALIANT INSURANCE: Obtains Summary Judgment in "Bowman" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, P.C. sued its malpractice insurer, Valiant Insurance Company, claiming that it has failed to provide coverage in a dispute involving bankruptcy litigation pending in the Middle District of Florida. Bowman Heintz seeks damages associated with defending itself in the Florida bankruptcy litigation, attempting to resolve and settle the Florida bankruptcy litigation, punitive damages for failing to defend Bowman Heintz, as well as a declaratory judgment that Valiant is in default under the insurance policy for a failure to defend. Valiant responded with a counterclaim of its own, seeking a declaratory judgment that Bowman Heintz has not incurred damages as defined under the policy and that Bowman Heintz has not followed the notice provisions of the Insurance Policy. Before the Court are Bowman Heintz's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Valiant's cross-motion for summary judgment. District Judge Jon E. DeGuilio denied Bowman Heintz's motion for summary judgment, and granted Valiant's cross-motion for summary judgment in an opinion and order dated August 1, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/gnpG5Wfrom Leagle.com. "There is simply no evidence whatsoever that Valiant denied coverage, knowing that it had no legitimate basis for doing so. . . . Valiant's denial of the claim in this case was proper on two grounds: first, because it had insufficient notice, and second, because sanctions were explicitly excluded as damages under the policy," ruled Judge GeGuillo. "Accordingly, Bowman Heintz has failed to meet its burden on this claim, and summary judgment is appropriate in favor of Valiant." The case is BOWMAN, HEINTZ, BOSCIA & VICIAN, P.C., Plaintiff, v. VALIANT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13 CV 0079, (N.D. Ind.). The matter involves six separate lawsuits, a bankruptcy, and two separate claims for malpractice coverage. It's a dispute about golf courses at Fiddler's Creek, a planned residential community in Collier County, Florida. Bowman Heintz is the named insured under Valiant's Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance Policy, Policy No. INV00015580, with a policy period of May 12, 2009 through May 12, 2010. Bowman Heintz is also the named insured under the renewal of the policy, with a policy period of May 12, 2010 to May 12, 2011. On April 22, 2010, Bowman Heintz filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Matthew Suffoletto, Raymond David, Steven Taub, and Stephen Shulman individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. Aubrey J. Ferrao, Case No.: 2:10- CV-241-FTM-36-DNF. The lawsuit alleged that Ferrao had diverted and misappropriated escrow monies that the plaintiffs had deposited for memberships in the Fiddler's Creek golf club. Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician PC, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur C Johnson -- acj@johnsonrappa.com -- Johnson Ivancevich LLP, Michael J Rappa, Law Office of Michael J Rappa PC, Steven A Johnson -- saj@johnsonrappa.com -- Johnson Ivancevich LLP & Robert E Stochel -- res@reslawyer.com -- Robert E Stochel PC. Valiant Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Christina L Talamonti -- talamonti@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Courtney Olivia Wylie -- courtney.wylie@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP & Joseph J Stafford PHV -- joseph.stafford@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. Valiant Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Christina L Talamonti, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Courtney Olivia Wylie, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP & Joseph J Stafford, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician PC, Counter Defendant, represented by Arthur C Johnson, Johnson Ivancevich LLP, Michael J Rappa, Law Office of Michael J Rappa PC, Steven A Johnson, Johnson Ivancevich LLP & Robert E Stochel, Robert E Stochel PC. VALLEY FORGE: Judge Allows Shareholder Class Action to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Mahoney and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on July 29 declined to dismiss a proposed shareholder class action against aerospace technology company Valley Forge Composite Technologies Inc. over its alleged failure to disclose illegal exports, three months after tossing a prior complaint due to inadequate pleading. U.S. District Judge Michael M. Anello said the shareholders had adequately alleged specific facts to survive the motion to dismiss stage. "Here, the first amended complaint includes specific and repeated allegations regarding the misrepresentation at issue," the order said. Lead plaintiff Robert J. Neborsky claims Covington, Kentucky-based Valley Forge and its co-founders Louis Brothers and Larry K. Wilhide misled investors about the company's revenue sources to avoid detection of allegedly illegal exports. When Valley Forge publicly divulged that federal prosecutors had accused it of illegally exporting military semiconductors to Hong Kong in violation of international arms trafficking law, the company's common stock plunged in value, the complaint alleged. Judge Anello said in an April order dismissing the case that Mr. Neborsky's first complaint failed to allege facts backing up the complaint. But the court allowed Mr. Neborsky to amend his pleading, which survived the preliminary stage on July 29. "The court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts demonstrating that defendants Brothers and Valley Forge issued material misrepresentations or omissions related to the product by which the company generated revenue and/or by failing to disclose the illegal exportation of semiconductors," the order said. Mr. Brothers remains in the suit after the July 29 order, but Judge Anello dismissed the complaint against Mr. Wilhide for failure to state a claim. For Mr. Brothers, the court said that the amended complaint had adequately pled that his alleged actions were committed with the knowledge of wrongdoing, or scienter. "The inference that Brothers acted with scienter is cogent and at least as compelling as the opposing inference that he acted innocently," the order said. According to Mr. Neborsky's complaint, Brothers represented to investors that all the company's revenues were derived from the sale of aerospace devices known as momentum wheels, which store energy. In reality, the company's revenues were largely derived from its illegal exports of semiconductors to Hong Kong, in violation of U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the suit said. On Feb. 6, Valley Forge announced in a statement that the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky was investigating the company for the allegedly illegal sale of $37 million of semiconductors to Hong Kong and said a company bank account containing $1.5 million had been seized. The day of the U.S. attorney's announcement, Valley Forge stock dropped from 14.9 cents per share to 5.7 cents per share, according to court documents. A week later, Mr. Brothers resigned as the company's president, CEO, chief financial officer and board chairman. Mr. Neborsky is seeking to represent a class of investors who purchased Valley Forge stock from Jan. 1, 2009, to Feb. 6, 2013. Mr. Neborsky is represented by Vincent D. Slavens and Eric J. Benink of Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens LLP. Mr. Wilhide is represented by Jeffrey M. Goldman -- goldmanj@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton LLP. Brothers is represented by Michael T. Gibbs of Gibbs & Fuerst LLP. The case is Neborsky v. Valley Forge Composite Technologies Inc. et al., case number 3:13-cv-02307, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Suit Over Background Screening Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian Warmoth, writing for InTheCapital, reports that nine plaintiffs, together with the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Arnold & Porter LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and three contractors on July 30. Together, they're arguing that WMATA has violated federal and local anti- discrimination laws with its criminal background screening policy. "While criminal background information can be a legitimate tool for employers when screening job applicants, WMATA's policy is unduly harsh, out of step with other jurisdictions, and limits opportunities for qualified African American employees," ReNika Moore, Director of the Economic Justice Group at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said in a press release. The plaintiffs are asserting that WMATA's policy violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and goes against guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, resulting in firings and the disqualification of applicants, a disproportionate number of whom have been African Americans. "I had been a longstanding seasonal landscaper and custodian through a contractor for Metro," said Marcello Virgil, one of the plaintiffs. "In fact, my supervisors encouraged me to apply for a full-time job directly with Metro. Yet, out of nowhere, I was told that I was going to be fired because of my 15-year-old conviction, even though I told them about that when I first applied to work there." Another plaintiff, Erick Little, claims that even though he passed a written test to become a bus operator and being offered a position, his offer was eventually withdraw because of a 27-year- old conviction. WMATA Public Information Officer Morgan Dye said that WMATA does not comment on pending litigation. Metro General Manager and CEO Richard Sarles, however, did address screening concerns at a D.C. Council meeting February. "I would like to clarify for the record that Metro has not terminated the employment of any employee due to a criminal conviction prior to their employment with us," Mr. Sarles stated during his testimony. Washington Lawyers' Committee Director of Litigation Matthew Handley spoke with InTheCapital over the phone on July 30 and clarified that the plaintiffs have a fundamental disagreement with Mr. Sarles' assertion that Metro has not terminated employees because of previous convictions. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Accused Unlawful Background Check Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erick Little, Lawrence Whitted, Timothy McClough, Gerald Tucker Leroy Quarles, Fitzgerald Stoney, Marcello Virgil, Leon Mckenzie and Louia Mckenzie on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Diamond Transportation, Executive Personnel Services, Inc. and First Transit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01289 (D.D.C., July 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants' background check policy is overly broad, unjustifiably rigid and unduly harsh. It results in the unnecessary firing of current employees who have a demonstrated track record of successful employment and the denial of employment to applicants who are well-qualified to perform the jobs at issue safely and effectively. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was created in 1967 by an interstate compact between the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia to develop and operate a regional transportation system. WMATA operates the second-largest heavy rail transit system, the sixth-largest bus network, and the fifth-largest paratransit service in the United States. Diamond Transportation is a transportation company headquartered in Northern Virginia. It has been a contractor for WMATA's MetroAccess service, and, in such capacity, conducted business throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Executive Personnel Services, Inc. is a company headquartered in Washington, D.C. EPSI is a staffing firm with a contract under a General Services Administration pilot program for federal agencies, and hires contract laborers for many entities, including WMATA. First Transit, Inc. is a transportation company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis A. Corkery, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 Facsimile: (202) 319-1010 E-mail: dennis_corkery@washlaw.org matthew_handley@washlaw.org - and - John Arak Freedman, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 555 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 942-5316 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: john.freedman@aporter.com - and - Sherrilyn Ifill, Esq. Christina A. Swarns, Esq. Renika C. Moore, Esq. Ria Tabacco Mar, Esq. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 - and - Johnathan J. Smith, Esq. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 1444 I Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 WATTS WATER: Settlement of Suit Over Toilet Connectors Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the $23.0 million class settlement reached in a lawsuit filed against Watts Water Technologies, Inc. over toilet connectors, according to the company's July 23, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies Co., Ltd., among other companies, were named as defendants in Trabakoolas et al., v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., a putative nationwide class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 12, 2013, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims. The total settlement amount is $23.0 million, of which the Company would be responsible for $14.0 million after insurance proceeds of $9.0 million. The settlement was subject to review by the Court at a preliminary approval hearing held on February 12, 2014. The Court granted preliminary approval on February 14, 2014. On July 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the class settlement at a fairness hearing, noting that the approval would be formalized in a subsequent written order. Once the written order is entered, it will become final unless an appeal is taken within thirty days. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Embraco Antitrust Settlement Gets Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The previously-disclosed settlement agreement by Whirlpool Corporation's compressor business headquartered in Brazil, with a class of U.S. direct purchasers, received final court approval, according to Whirlpool's July 23, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014. Beginning in February 2009, the company's compressor business headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations of the global compressor industry by government authorities in various jurisdictions. In 2013, Embraco sales represented approximately 8% of the company's global net sales. Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and concluded their investigations of the Company. In connection with these agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust law with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from 2004 through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments. Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009, Embraco, and other compressor manufacturers, have been named as defendants in related antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection with the pricing of compressors during certain periods beginning in 1996 or later. The company resolved certain claims and certain claims remain pending. Additional lawsuits could be filed. On June 16, 2014, Embraco's previously-disclosed settlement agreement with plaintiffs representing a settlement class of U.S. direct purchasers received final court approval. The combination of this settlement and other resolutions resolves all pending U.S. claims. In connection with the defense and resolution of the Embraco antitrust matters, the company incurred cumulative charges of approximately $414 million since 2009, including fines, defense costs, and other expenses. These charges have been recorded within interest and sundry income (expense). At June 30, 2014, $45 million remains accrued, with installment payments of $42 million, plus interest, remaining to be made to government authorities at various times through 2015. ********* 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 * * *