/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141009.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 201
Headlines
950 ATLANTIC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ANTICO FOODS: Labor Department Seeks TRO to Enjoin Retaliation
APPLE INC: Cannot Exclude Key Expert in iTunes Monopoly Case
ASSURED GUARANTY: Updates on Cases Over Fin'l Products Business
AUTOZONE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports
AXCESS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Improper Use of Consumer Reports
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Alleged ISDAfix Rate Manipulation
BARNES & NOBLE: Files Petition for Rehearing in Ninth Circuit
BARNES & NOBLE: Seeks Dismisal of PIN Pad Litigation
BARNES & NOBLE: Status Conference in "Lina" Case on November 18
BARNES & NOBLE: Status Conference in "Jones" Case on November 18
BARNES & NOBLE: Written Discovery Has Begun in "Carag" Case
BARNES & NOBLE: Summary Judgment Motion Denied in "Trimmer" Case
BARNES & NOBLE: Shaev Elected Not to Appeal Case Dismissal
BARNES & NOBLE: "Briskin" Plaintiff Drops Claims
BIG HEART: "Gamez" Case Transferred to California Superior Court
BIG HEART: Tentative Settlement Reached in "Montgomery" Case
BIG HEART: Fifth Amended Complaint Filed in "Miller" Case
BIG HEART: Filed Answer to Report and Recommendation
BIG HEART: Cannot Estimate Exposure of Liability in "Mazur" Case
BIG HEART: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Webster" Case Denied
BOLT TECHNOLOGY: "Linnemeyer" Merger Suit Removed to D. Conn.
BRACCOS CLAM: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CANADIAN PAYMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
CHEVRON CORP: $106MM in Assets Will Be Seized by Ecuadoreans
CLINTON GOURMET: Faces "Tenorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COMVERSE INC: Unit Named as Defendants in 4 Israel Class Actions
COMVERSE INC: Summations on Behalf of Defendants Due October 31
COMVERSE INC: Katriel & Deutsch Cases Moved to Tel Aviv Dist. Ct.
DEALERSHIP MANAGEMENT: Removes "Thompson" Suit to M.D. Florida
DIRECTV LLC: "Miller" Suit Moved From S.D. to C.D. California
DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Cir. Upheld $1BB Penalty in Price Fixing Suit
DPD SUB: Sued in D. Colorado Over Misleading Franchise Agreement
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Has Pre-Tax $0.5MM Charge for Settlement
ECHOSPHERE LLC: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Altamirano" Suit Claims
EI DU PONT: Poisoning Suits Moved to West Virginia District Court
ENZYMOTEC LTD: Faces "Moorefield" Securities Suit in New Jersey
FIRST FINANCIAL: Sued Over Illegal Retention of Sales Commissions
GREENVILLE COUNTY, SC: Faces Suit Over Violation of Civil Rights
GSJ RESTAURANT: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GSJ RESTAURANT: Faces 2nd "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HAPPY FOODS: Faces "Chacon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Provides Update on "Cunningham" Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Salva" Case Stayed by Court
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Karlbom" Case Remanded to State Court
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Blake" Parties Submitted Confidential Accord
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in "Benedict"
HEWLETT-PACKARD: 9th Cir. Set Oral Argument in Pension Fund Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in "Copeland I" Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Granted Stipulation to Stay "Copeland II"
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Company, Insurers Pay $57MM in Settlement
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jury Trial to Begin July 2015 in "Espinoza" Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: November 17 Status Conference in "Gonzalez" Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Cement & Concrete Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Second Amended Complaint Filed in ERISA Case
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Sound" Class Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach
IKO MANUFACTURING: Falsely Marketed Shingles Products, Suit Says
INDYMAC MBS: Pension Plans Can't Intervene in Supreme Court Case
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Sued in Ind. Over Misleading Financial Reports
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: One Defendant Dropped in Royalties Suit
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Provides Update on Data Privacy Litigation
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Seek to Vacate Court Judgment
LEONISCHE HOLDING: Accused of Fixing Wire Harness Products Price
MCF CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Stocks Price
MILLER ENERGY: To Complete Documentation of Settlement This Month
MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Prisoners Can Sue Over Jail Condition
PANASONIC CORPORATION: Restraints Trade of Capacitors, Suit Says
PARTSSOURCE INC: Removes "Gembarski" Suit to Ohio District Court
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Sued for Obtaining Personal Info
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due Nov
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendants File Answer in "Michaeli"
PORTO RESTAURANT: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SAKS FIFTH: Removes "Malik" Suit to California District Court
SCRANTON ENDOSCOPY: Accused of Reusing Unsterilized Equipment
SHORES & RUARK: Accused of Not Paying Mexican Workers Proper OT
SMITH & WOLLENSKY: Waiter Shared Tips With Manager, Suit Says
SUBWAY 45847: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TILLY'S INC: Discovery in "Christiansen" Case in Early Stages
TILLY'S INC: Denial of Arbitration in "Rebolledo" Case Upheld
TILLY'S INC: "Whitten" Case Stayed Pending Case Management Confab
TJEM INC: Sued in M.D. Florida Over Illegal Collection of Debt
TRINITY RIVER: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Under FLSA
TRITON WINDOW: Fails to Pay OT, "Luzardo" Action Claims
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by ZF
TTC LANDSCAPING: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Adams" Wage and Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages in Texas
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Moran" Suit in R.I. Over Unpaid Overtime
WHOLE FOODS: Four Suits Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL in Mass.
*********
950 ATLANTIC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Fernandez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. 950 Atlantic Collision, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23623
(S.D. Fla., September 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.
950 Atlantic Collision, Inc. owns and operates an automobile body
repairing and repainting shop.
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
ANTICO FOODS: Labor Department Seeks TRO to Enjoin Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of
Labor v. Antico Foods, LLC, and Giovanni DiPalma, Case No. 1:14-
cv-03143-SCJ (N.D. Ga., September 30, 2014) seeks Temporary
Restraining Order enjoining the Defendants from engaging in and
threatening retaliation against the Company's current and former
employees.
The Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, is
currently investigating the Defendants to determine whether they
are in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the Secretary of Labor's application for TRO, Mr.
DiPalma has unlawfully interfered with the federal investigation
in several ways by intimidating, terminating, and threatening to
terminate employees of the Company and threatening to call
immigration authorities concerning employees believed to have
cooperated in the Department of Labor investigation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Patricia Smith, Esq., Solicitor of Labor
Kristin R. Murphy, Esq., Attorney
Stanley E. Keen, Esq., Regional Solicitor
Robert L. Walter, Esq., Counsel
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
U. S. Department of Labor
61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Room 7T10
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (678) 237-0613
Facsimile: (404) 302-5438
E-mail: murphy.kristin.r@dol.gov
APPLE INC: Cannot Exclude Key Expert in iTunes Monopoly Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple cannot exclude a key expert for the class accusing it of
monopolizing digital music and music players between 2006 and
2009, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service citing a
federal court ruling.
Brought in 2005, the class action alleges that Apple illegally
acquired a digital music player monopoly with an iTunes update
that made it impossible for iPods to play songs purchased from
another online music store.
The plaintiffs tapped Stanford economist Roger Noll to testify
that the update made it more costly for an iPod user to switch
media players because it would be harder to collect music that
could be played on all devices. Noll said the update also
encouraged iPod owners to only buy music from iTunes. The
resulting monopoly allowed Apple to charge more for iPods, causing
$305 million in damages to the class, Noll told the court.
Apple's own experts meanwhile have criticized Noll's analyses.
Apple moved to exclude Noll's testimony in December 2013, and the
plaintiffs moved to exclude the testimony of Apple's experts,
professors Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel.
On September 26, 2014, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Rogers denied
both Apple's motion to exclude Noll's testimony, and the
plaintiffs' motion to strike opinions and an expert report by
Murphy and Topel.
Rogers also denied a motion by Apple for summary judgment.
The case is The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
05-CV-0037 YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
ASSURED GUARANTY: Updates on Cases Over Fin'l Products Business
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., in its Consolidated Financial
Statements (Unaudited) June 30, 2014, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, provided updates on
lawsuits relating to former financial products business.
During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts ("GICs"). These cases have been coordinated
and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516
("MDL 1950").
Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings
Inc. ("AGMH") and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., formerly known
as Financial Security Assurance Inc. ("AGM"): (a) Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia
v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District,
Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington
County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss on the federal claims, but granted leave for the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Corrected Third
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on October 9,
2013, lists neither AGM nor AGMH as a named defendant or a co-
conspirator.
The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or
range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits.
Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp. When the four plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the plaintiffs
did not name AGMH as a defendant. However, the complaint does
describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities. The consolidated
complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court
granted in part and denied in part the named defendants' motions
to dismiss this consolidated complaint.
In 2008, AGMH and AGM also were named in five non-class action
lawsuits originally filed in the California Superior Courts
alleging violations of California law related to the municipal
derivatives industry: (a) City of Los Angeles, California v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (b) City of Stockton, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (c) County of San Diego, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (d) County of San Mateo, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; and (e) County of Contra Costa, California v. Bank
of America, N.A. Amended complaints in these actions were filed in
September 2009, adding a federal antitrust claim and naming AGM
(but not AGMH) and AGUS, among other defendants. These cases have
been transferred to the Southern District of New York and
consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings.
In late 2009, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
six additional non-class action cases filed in federal court,
which also have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings with MDL 1950: (f) City of Riverside, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.; (g) Sacramento Municipal Utility District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (h) Los Angeles World Airports v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (i) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (j) Sacramento Suburban Water District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; and (k) County of Tulare, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.
The MDL 1950 court denied AGM and AGUS's motions to dismiss these
11 complaints in April 2010. Amended complaints were filed in May
2010. On October 29, 2010, AGM and AGUS were voluntarily dismissed
with prejudice from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District case
only. The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek or sought
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and
other expenses. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from the
remaining lawsuits.
In May 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
five additional non-class action cases filed in federal court in
California: (a) City of Richmond, California v. Bank of America,
N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (b) City of Redwood
City, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010,
N.D. California); (c) Redevelopment Agency of the City and County
of San Francisco, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on
May 21, 2010, N.D. California); (d) East Bay Municipal Utility
District, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18,
2010, N.D. California); and (e) City of San Jose and the San Jose
Redevelopment Agency, California v. Bank of America, N.A (filed on
May 18, 2010, N.D. California). These cases have also been
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. In September 2010, AGM and
AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a sixth additional
non-class action filed in federal court in New York, but which
alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in addition to
federal antitrust law: Active Retirement Community, Inc. d/b/a
Jefferson's Ferry v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on September 21,
2010, E.D. New York), which has also been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings. In December 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other
defendants, were named in a seventh additional non-class action
filed in federal court in the Central District of California, Los
Angeles Unified School District v. Bank of America, N.A., and in
an eighth additional non-class action filed in federal court in
the Southern District of New York, Kendal on Hudson, Inc. v. Bank
of America, N.A. These cases also have been consolidated with MDL
1950 for pretrial proceedings. The complaints in these lawsuits
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses. The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
arise from these lawsuits.
In January 2011, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in an additional non-class action case filed in federal court in
New York, which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in
addition to federal antitrust law: Peconic Landing at Southold,
Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. This case has been consolidated with
MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. The complaint in this lawsuit
generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses. The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.
In September 2009, the Attorney General of the State of West
Virginia filed a lawsuit (Circuit Ct. Mason County, W. Va.)
against Bank of America, N.A. alleging West Virginia state
antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives industry,
seeking damages and alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to
fix the pricing of, and manipulate bids for, municipal
derivatives, including GICs. An amended complaint in this action
was filed in June 2010, adding a federal antitrust claim and
naming AGM (but not AGMH) and AGUS, among other defendants. This
case has been removed to federal court as well as transferred to
the S.D.N.Y. and consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial
proceedings. AGM and AGUS answered West Virginia's Second Amended
Complaint on November 11, 2013. The complaint in this lawsuit
generally seeks civil penalties, unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses. The Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of
loss that may arise from this lawsuit.
AUTOZONE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Use of Consumer Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Aceves Jr. and Jesse Alvarez, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Autozone, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-02032 (C.D.
Cal., September 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide proper pre-authorization disclosures for
acquisition and use of consumer and investigative consumer reports
to conduct background checks on the Plaintiffs and other
prospective, current, and former employees.
Autozone, Inc. is a retailer of aftermarket automotive parts and
accessories.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Robert Friedl, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
AXCESS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Improper Use of Consumer Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Vontanise Poole, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Axcess Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a Check 'N Go,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00765-MRB (S.D. Ohio, September 30, 2014) is
filed on behalf of job applicants, who were the subject of
consumer reports obtained by the Defendant as a precondition of
employment during the five-year period preceding the filing of the
action (the "Class Period") seeking remedies under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Axcess Financial Services, Inc., doing business as Check 'n Go, is
an Ohio Corporation headquartered in Cincinnati.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony R. Pecora, Esq.
Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
O'TOOLE, McLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY & PECORA, CO., LPA
5455 Detroit Road
Sheffield Village, OH 44054
Telephone: (440) 930-4001
Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
E-mail: apecora@omdplaw.com
mdooley@omdplaw.com
- and -
Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
THE WEINER LAW FIRM LLC
3525 Piedmont Road
7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 205-5029
Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Alleged ISDAfix Rate Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
The County of Beaver, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
07907 (S.D.N.Y., September 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
conspired to fix the ISDAfix rate at artificial levels to avoid
paying the true amounts owed when investors' ISDAfix-linked
investments were in-the-money.
ISDAfix was designed to represent current fixed rates for interest
rate swaps of various terms. Specifically, it is supposed to be an
average mid-market swap rate for six major currencies at selected
maturities.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Scott, Esq.
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
Sylvia M. Sokol, Esq.
Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Ave, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10174-4099
Telephone: (800) 404-7770
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
cburke@scott-scott.com
ssokol@scott-scott.com
dbroggi@scott-scott.com
tboardman@scott-scott.com
- and -
Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
Ronald J. Aronoff, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 779-1414
Facsimile:(212)779-3218
E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
Aranoff@bernlieb.com
- and -
Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
Daniel Cunningham, Esq.
Marc L. Greenwald, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010-1601
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com
marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Patrick Coughlin, Esq.
David Mitchell, Esq.
Brian O'Mara, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
SanDiego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619)231-7423
E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
davidm@rgrdlaw.com
bomara@rgrdlaw.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Files Petition for Rehearing in Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that on August 18, 2014,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's
denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September
2, 2014, the Company filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing
en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That petition is
currently pending.
The case is, Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California against the Company. The complaint is
styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California
state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for
HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August
2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and
false advertising under both New York and California state law,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law,
and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance
of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a
specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does
not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response
to the complaint on May 18, 2012, and moved to compel plaintiff to
arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a
contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The Company has
also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer the
action to New York. The court denied the Company's motion to
compel arbitration, and the Company appealed that denial to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the Company's
motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action has been
stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's
denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On August 18, 2014,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's
denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September
2, 2014, the Company filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing
en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That petition is
currently pending.
BARNES & NOBLE: Seeks Dismisal of PIN Pad Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the PIN Pad Litigation filed an amended
complaint, and Barnes & Noble, Inc. filed a second motion to
dismiss. That motion is pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9,
2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.
The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes.
The actions sought various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were
transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single
consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second
motion to dismiss. That motion is pending.
BARNES & NOBLE: Status Conference in "Lina" Case on November 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for November 18, 2014 in the case
Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
et al., Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.
On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at
Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to
present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay
for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties;
(4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation
that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt
from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.
The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On
July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy
his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over
individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class
representative, or that a class action was a superior method to
adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Trial court proceedings will
continue on plaintiff Lina's individual claims. A status
conference is scheduled for November 18, 2014.
BARNES & NOBLE: Status Conference in "Jones" Case on November 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
The next scheduled court date is a status conference on November
18, 2014 in the case Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and
Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., the Company said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.
On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones filed a purported Private
Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc.
and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the
State of California making the following allegations with respect
to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in
California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to
pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time
penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide
reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide
itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of
the allegation that Jones and other "aggrieved employees" were
improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour
laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number
of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees.
On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action
is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action
and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served
with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013.
The next scheduled court date is a status conference on November
18, 2014.
BARNES & NOBLE: Written Discovery Has Begun in "Carag" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Written discovery has begun in Cassandra Carag individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc, Barnes
& Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2014.
On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra
Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court,
asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non-
exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding
four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged
off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and
rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records,
and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay
errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to
recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes
& Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to
present. On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the
state court and concurrently requested removal of the action to
federal court. On May 30, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's
motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint
(referring the latter motion to the lower court for future
consideration). On September 2, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's
motion to disqualify counsel (based on their prior role in the
Lina matter). Written discovery has begun.
BARNES & NOBLE: Summary Judgment Motion Denied in "Trimmer" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble Inc. filed a summary judgment motion on November
25, 2013, which was denied on July 18, 2014, in the case Trimmer
v. Barnes & Noble, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.
On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former Assistant
Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and
other similarly situated ASMs were improperly classified as exempt
from overtime and denied overtime wages prior to July 1, 2010,
when the Company reclassified them as non-exempt. The complaint
seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSA comprised of
ASMs throughout the country employed from January 25, 2010 until
July 1, 2010, and a class action under the NYLL comprised of ASMs
employed in New York from January 25, 2007 until July 1, 2010. The
parties have completed the first phase of discovery with respect
to the individual claims asserted by Trimmer and one opt-in
plaintiff only. The Company filed a summary judgment motion on
November 25, 2013, which was denied on July 18, 2014.
BARNES & NOBLE: Shaev Elected Not to Appeal Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case David Shaev Profit Sharing Account v. Leonard Riggio
et al., the Court on July 3, 2014, granted the defendants' motion
and dismissed Shaev's amended complaint with prejudice. Shaev
elected not to appeal, and the decision is now final and non-
appealable, Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.
On December 17, 2013, David Shaev Profit Sharing Account (Shaev)
filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint against Leonard
Riggio, George Campbell, Jr., Mark Carleton, William Dillard, II,
David Golden, Patricia Higgins, Gregory Maffei and David Wilson
(collectively, the defendants), and naming Barnes & Noble, Inc.,
as nominal defendant, in the Supreme Court of New York, County of
New York. The complaint alleged that defendants (1) breached their
fiduciary duties by knowingly or recklessly permitting the Company
to function without effective internal controls over financial
reporting while simultaneously allowing the Company to assure the
public that the Company's internal controls functioned properly;
and (2) abused their ability to control and influence the Company.
The complaint was served on the Company on December 19, 2013, and
assigned to the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court on
February 4, 2014. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on February 14, 2014, and in response, on March 14,
2014, Shaev filed an amended complaint. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint as well. On July 3, 2014, the
Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed Shaev's amended
complaint with prejudice. Shaev elected not to appeal, and the
decision is now final and non-appealable.
BARNES & NOBLE: "Briskin" Plaintiff Drops Claims
------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Barnes & Noble, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Jules Briskin as the lead plaintiff filed on September 5, 2014, a
notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all of Briskin's
claims against all defendants in the consolidated action, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2014.
Anthony Taylor (Taylor) and Stephen Maitland-Lewis (Maitland-
Lewis) filed class action complaints for violations of the federal
securities law on January 8, 2014, and January 23, 2014,
respectively. Both of these actions, which are substantially
similar, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Leonard
Riggio, William Lynch, Jr., and Michael Huseby are named as
defendants in the Taylor action. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Michael
Huseby, William Lynch, Jr. and Allen Lindstrom are named as
defendants in the Maitland-Lewis action. The complaints allege
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (making false statements or
otherwise engaging in a scheme to defraud, or omitting to state
material facts causing inflation of company stock), and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (liability for
controlling persons). Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants made, or caused the Company to make, false statements
or omitted, or caused the Company to omit, material information
with respect to the Company's failure to implement adequate
internal controls over financial reporting. On July 16, 2014, the
Court consolidated these actions and appointed plaintiff Jules
Briskin (Briskin) as the lead plaintiff. On September 5, 2014,
Briskin filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice of
all of Briskin's claims against all defendants in the consolidated
action.
BIG HEART: "Gamez" Case Transferred to California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court on August 7, 2014, approved to transfer the
case Gamez v. Del Monte to the Superior Court of California,
Fresno County, Big Heart Pet Brands said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended July 27, 2014.
Plaintiff filed on January 31, 2014, a complaint in the Superior
Court of California, San Francisco County (Gamez v. Del Monte)
alleging violations of various California wage and hour statutes.
This lawsuit was transferred to Del Monte Foods, Inc. pursuant to
the terms of the purchase agreement. However, liabilities
associated with Kingsburg, CA and Terminal Island, CA facilities
were retained by the Company. On August 7, 2014, the Court
approved to transfer this case to the Superior Court of
California, Fresno County. Del Monte Foods, Inc. is maintaining
primary defense of the litigation, but any settlement made with
the class will likely include the Company.
The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously
defend itself. The Company has accrued an estimated amount to
resolve this matter that is not considered material.
Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is the
largest U.S. standalone producer, distributor and marketer of
premium quality, branded pet food and pet snacks generating
approximately $2.2 billion in net sales from continuing operations
in fiscal 2014. Its pet food and pet snack brands include well
known household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n
Bits, 9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's
Recipe, Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.
BIG HEART: Tentative Settlement Reached in "Montgomery" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement, pending court approval, was reached in the
case Montgomery v. Del Monte, Big Heart Pet Brands said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 27, 2014.
On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated employees in Superior
Court of California, Alameda County (Montgomery v. Del Monte)
alleging, inter alia, failure to provide meal and rest periods and
pay wages properly in violation of various California wage and
hour statutes. This lawsuit was transferred to Del Monte Foods,
Inc. pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement. However,
liabilities associated with Kingsburg, CA and Terminal Island, CA
facilities were retained by the Company. Del Monte Foods, Inc. is
maintaining primary defense of the litigation, but any settlement
made with the class will likely include the Company. The Company
denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
Mediation was held on June 24, 2014. A tentative settlement,
pending court approval, was reached.
The Company has accrued an estimated amount to resolve this matter
that is not considered material, and the Company's share of the
settlement is expected to be covered by the amount accrued.
Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is the
largest U.S. standalone producer, distributor and marketer of
premium quality, branded pet food and pet snacks generating
approximately $2.2 billion in net sales from continuing operations
in fiscal 2014. Its pet food and pet snack brands include well
known household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n
Bits, 9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's
Recipe, Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.
BIG HEART: Fifth Amended Complaint Filed in "Miller" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the case Miller v. Del Monte filed a Fifth
Amended Complaint on July 14, 2014 to include an additional
Plaintiff and remove Harmon as a named Plaintiff, Big Heart Pet
Brands said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended July 27, 2014.
On January 31, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, Miller v. Del Monte (formerly known as Harmon v. Del
Monte) alleging that Milo's Kitchen chicken jerky treats ("Chicken
Jerky Treats") and Milo's Kitchen Chicken Grillers Recipe home-
style dog treats contain "poisonous antibiotics and other
potentially lethal substances." Plaintiff seeks certification as a
class action, as well as restitution and damages not to exceed
$75,000 per class member and the aggregated claim for damages of
the class not to exceed $5.0 million under the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act. The complaint also alleges the
Company continued to sell its Chicken Jerky Treats in Jackson
County, Missouri after it announced its recall of the product on
January 9, 2013.
The Company successfully removed this case to federal court on
March 12, 2013. On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Class Action Petition against the Company. The Company filed its
Motion to Transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania on
April 19, 2013 and its Motion to Stay Pending the Motion to
Transfer on April 25, 2013. The Motion to Stay was granted the
same day it was filed.
On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Transfer. The Company filed its Reply in Support of its
Motion to Transfer on May 23, 2013. The Court denied the Company's
Motion to Transfer on July 22, 2013. The Company filed its Answer
on August 13, 2013 and discovery has commenced.
On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint and
filed a Fourth Amended Complaint to include an additional named
plaintiff on April 22, 2014. The Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended
Complaint on July 14, 2014 to include an additional Plaintiff and
remove Harmon as a named Plaintiff.
The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously
defend itself. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate
a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.
Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is the
largest U.S. standalone producer, distributor and marketer of
premium quality, branded pet food and pet snacks generating
approximately $2.2 billion in net sales from continuing operations
in fiscal 2014. Its pet food and pet snack brands include well
known household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n
Bits, 9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's
Recipe, Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.
BIG HEART: Filed Answer to Report and Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------
The District Judge has adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, and Big Heart Pet Brands filed its Answer on April
8, 2014, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 27, 2014.
On September 6, 2012, October 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012, three
separate putative class action complaints were filed against the
Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Langone v. Del Monte, Ruff v. Del Monte, and Funke v.
Del Monte, respectively) alleging product liability claims
relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically, the complaints
allege that Plaintiffs' dogs became ill as a result of consumption
of Chicken Jerky Treats. The complaints also allege that the
Company breached its warranties and California's consumer
protection laws. Each of the complaints seeks certification as a
class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company
denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
On December 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to relate and
consolidate the Langone, Ruff and Funke matters. The Company
agreed that the cases are related but argued in its response that
they should not be consolidated. The Court ordered the cases are
related in an Order on January 24, 2013.
In the Langone case, the Company filed a Motion to
Transfer/Dismiss on February 1, 2013. Plaintiff in the Langone
matter voluntarily dismissed his Complaint without prejudice on
February 21, 2013 and re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on May 21, 2013. The Company
filed its Motion to Dismiss in the Langone case with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on August
2, 2013.
The individual claims in the Langone case were settled for a de
minimus amount, and a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice was
filed on November 25, 2013.
On April 9, 2013, the Court transferred Ruff and Funke to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania but denied
without prejudice Defendant's motions to consolidate and dismiss.
On April 23, 2013, the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss in Ruff
and Funke with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania and its Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss in
both cases on June 3, 2013.
On February 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to
Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment and denied in all other
respects. The Company filed its objections to the Report and
Recommendations on March 5, 2014. The District Judge adopted the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on March 25, 2014.
The Company filed its Answer on April 8, 2014.
The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of
exposure, if any, of the potential liability.
On August 16, 2013, the Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases were
consolidated.
Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is the
largest U.S. standalone producer, distributor and marketer of
premium quality, branded pet food and pet snacks generating
approximately $2.2 billion in net sales from continuing operations
in fiscal 2014. Its pet food and pet snack brands include well
known household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n
Bits, 9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's
Recipe, Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.
BIG HEART: Cannot Estimate Exposure of Liability in "Mazur" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Heart Pet Brands, in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended July 27, 2014, said it cannot at this time reasonably
estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability
in the case Mazur v. Del Monte.
On July 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Mazur v. Del Monte) alleging product
liability claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Plaintiff's dog became ill and had to
be euthanized as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats.
The complaint also alleges that the Company breached its
warranties and Pennsylvania's consumer protection laws. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in
excess of $5.0 million. The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.
On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion to
Consolidate the previously filed two similar class actions against
Nestle Purina Petcare Company, owner of the Waggin' Train brand of
chicken jerky treats, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation ("MDL"). Plaintiff's Motion also sought to include the
case against the Company in the proposed MDL consolidation as a
"related case."
On September 28, 2012, the Court denied the MDL Motion. The case
will now proceed in the jurisdiction in which it was originally
filed.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Commence Limited Discovery
on the subject of the voluntary recall of Chicken Jerky Treats on
January 25, 2013. The Company filed its response opposing the
Motion on February 8, 2013. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion on
March 12, 2013; thus, discovery is stayed until the Court rules on
the Company's Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on September 24,
2012.
On May 24, 2013, the Judge in the matter issued a Report and
Recommendation stating that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to
Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment and denied in all other
respects. The Company filed its Objections to the Report and
Recommendation on June 7, 2013. The Court issued an Order adopting
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on June 25, 2013.
The Court denied the Company's Motion for Reconsideration on July
8, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on August 2, 2013.
The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of
exposure, if any, of the potential liability.
On August 16, 2013, the Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases were
consolidated.
Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is the
largest U.S. standalone producer, distributor and marketer of
premium quality, branded pet food and pet snacks generating
approximately $2.2 billion in net sales from continuing operations
in fiscal 2014. Its pet food and pet snack brands include well
known household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n
Bits, 9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's
Recipe, Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.
BIG HEART: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Webster" Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court denied Big Heart Pet Brands' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings in the case Webster v. Del Monte, Big Heart said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 27, 2014.
On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in Los Angeles Superior Court (Webster v. Del
Monte) alleging false advertising under California's consumer
protection laws, negligence, breach of warranty and strict
liability. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
engaged in false advertising by representing that the Chicken
Jerky Treats are healthy, wholesome, and safe for consumption by
dogs, and alleges that Plaintiff's pet became ill after consuming
Chicken Jerky Treats. The allegations apply to all other putative
class members similarly situated. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and unspecified damages,
disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief. The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.
On September 6, 2012, the Company filed a Notice of Removal to
remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to
amend its complaint to remove the federal class action claims and
remand the case back to Los Angeles County Superior Court. The
Company subsequently stipulated to Plaintiff's motion, and the
case has been remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The Company filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on July
3, 2013. The Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 21, 2013. The
Company filed its Reply on August 27, 2013.
The Court denied the Company's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings on February 20, 2014. The Company cannot at this time
reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential
liability.
Big Heart Pet Brands and its consolidated subsidiaries is the
largest U.S. standalone producer, distributor and marketer of
premium quality, branded pet food and pet snacks generating
approximately $2.2 billion in net sales from continuing operations
in fiscal 2014. Its pet food and pet snack brands include well
known household brands such as Meow Mix, Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n
Bits, 9Lives, Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's
Recipe, Canine Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names.
BOLT TECHNOLOGY: "Linnemeyer" Merger Suit Removed to D. Conn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Teledyne Technologies Incorporated and Lightning Merger
Sub, Inc., removed the class action lawsuit styled Linnemeyer v.
Bolt Technology Corporation, et al., Case No. FST-CV-14-6023479 S,
from the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Judicial
District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, to the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01438-SRU to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises out of the Defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty or the aiding and abetting of those breaches in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Bolt by Teledyne
through an unfair process and at an unfair price.
Bolt Technology Corporation is a Connecticut corporation with its
principal place of business in Connecticut. The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Bolt. Bolt is a leading
worldwide developer and manufacturer of marine seismic data
acquisition equipment used for offshore oil and natural gas
exploration.
Teledyne Technologies Incorporated is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in California. Lightning Merger
Sub, Inc. is a Connecticut corporation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy P. Moylan, Esq.
Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI, LLP
One Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 569-1105
Facsimile: (203) 348-2321
E-mail: jwhitcomb@dmoc.com
tmoylan@dmoc.com
- and -
Randall J. Baron, Esq.
Rick Atwood, Esq.
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
Edward M. Gergosian, 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: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
ricka@rgrdlaw.com
DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
DUNNAM DUNNAM HARMON WEST LINDLEY & RYAN LLP
4125 W. Waco Drive
Waco, TX 76710
Telephone: (254) 753-6437
Facsimile: (254) 753-7434
E-mail: hlindley@dunnamlaw.com
Defendants Bolt Technology Corporation, Michael C. Hedger, Stephen
F. Ryan, Kevin M. Conlisk, Peter J. Siciliano, Gerald A. Smith,
Michael H. Flynn, George R. Kabureck, and Raymond M. Soto are
represented by:
Frank J. Silvestri, Jr., Esq.
LEVETT ROCKWOOD P.C.
33 Riverside Avenue
Westport, CT 06880
Telephone: (203) 222-3108
E-mail: fsilvestri@levettrockwood.com
- and -
John J. Tumilty, Esq.
Scott R. Magee, Esq.
EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP
111 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02199
Telephone: (617) 239-0100
Facsimile: (617) 227-4420
E-mail: jtumilty@edwardswildman.com
smagee@edwardswildman.com
Defendants Teledyne Technologies Incorporated and Lightning Merger
Sub, Inc., are represented by:
James T. Shearin, Esq.
PULLMAN & COMLEY LLC
850 Main Street
P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
Telephone: (203) 330-2240
Facsimile: (203) 567-8888
E-mail: jtshearin@pullcom.com
- and -
Walter P. DeForest, Esq.
David J. Berardinelli, Esq.
Steven K. Schartup, Esq.
DEFOREST KOSCELNIK YOKITIS & BERARDINELLI
436 Seventh Avenue, 30th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 227-3100
Facsimile: (412) 227-3130
E-mail: deforest@deforestlawfirm.com
berardinelli@deforestlawfirm.com
- and -
Shawn Fox, Esq.
Laurent S. Wiesel, Esq.
Kristina M. Allen, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10105
Telephone: (212) 548-2140
Facsimile: (212) 715-6281
E-mail: sfox@mcguirewoods.com
lwiesel@mcguirewoods.com
kallen@mcguirewoods.com
BRACCOS CLAM: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Estanislao Gonzalez Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of
himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. Braccos
Clam & Oyster Bar Inc., Michael Bracco, Jonathan Bracco, Robert
Bracco, and Gerard Bracco, Case No. 2:14-cv-05717 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Freeport, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq.
FRANK & ASSOCIATES P.C.
500 Bi-county Blvd, 112n Farmingdale
Farmingdale, NY 11735
Telephone: (631) 756-0400
Facsimile: (631) 756-0547
E-mail: promero@laborlaws.com
CANADIAN PAYMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ndeye Yacine Mbodj and Ryan Thompson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Canadian Payment Services,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07900 (S.D.N.Y., September 30,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages, the statutory minimum wage, and gap time pay.
Canadian Payment Services, LLC provides merchant services,
including but not limited to, credit card processing, debit card
processing, gift card and loyalty programs, and cash advances for
a wide array of businesses.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Quincy Davis, Esq.
Rachel Meredith Haskell, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER DAVIS
18 W. 18th Street, 11th Fl.
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (646) 356-1011
Facsimile: (646) 349-2504
E-mail: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com
rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com
CHEVRON CORP: $106MM in Assets Will Be Seized by Ecuadoreans
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Amazon
rainforest residents plan to seize the $106 million in Chevron's
assets in Ecuador, their lawyers said on September 30, 2014,
turning a corner in the decades-old pollution fight.
If successful, the seizure will mark the first time that Amazon
residents received a penny of the $9.5 billion environment
judgment that an Ecuadorean court issued three years ago.
Indigenous and farmer Ecuadoreans have been fighting for more than
20 years to hold Chevron liable for its predecessor Texaco's
drilling in Lago Agrio, named after the oil company's former
headquarters in Sour Lake, Texas.
A year after Texaco left, lawyers for the Ecuadoreans filed a
federal class action in New York, seeking environmental and public
health damages.
Chevron had the case refiled in Ecuador after acquiring Texaco in
2001.
Facing imminent defeat nearly a decade later, Chevron filed a
federal racketeering lawsuit in New York that accused the lawyers
for their adversaries of planning a "shakedown" to defraud the
Lago Agrio court through bribery, intimidation and ghostwriting.
That case capped off this year with U.S. District Judge Lewis
Kaplan finding that the Lago Agrio judgment had been "procured by
corrupt means" and forbidding lawyers for the Ecuadoreans from
profiting from it.
The Ecuadoreans have denied the allegations and appealed that
decision, which they contend will not slow down collection efforts
underway against Chevron in Canada, Brazil and Argentina.
Chevron never drilled in Ecuador and had no assets to speak of
there -- until the week of September 22.
On September 26, 2014, a Dutch court affirmed a $106 million
judgment that Chevron won against the Ecuadorean government over
an unrelated international arbitration dispute.
Steven Donziger, a New York-based attorney who helped lead the
Amazon litigation, said September 30 that his former clients have
a valid claim on that award because the Ecuador's Supreme Court
affirmed the judgment last year.
The Lago Agrio provincial court finalized it in two separate court
orders shortly before that.
"Chevron cannot on the one hand refuse to pay a valid final court
judgment in its chosen forum of Ecuador that has been affirmed on
appeal, and on the other hand pretend to collect a separate
judgment against Ecuador's government in an unrelated case,"
Donziger said in a statement. "Such selective enforcement in
favor of a powerful litigant would undermine the rule of law for
everybody."
Chevron meanwhile doubted that the farmers behind the suit in Lago
Agrio could seize the arbitral award that the government of
Ecuador must pay.
"On multiple occasions, the republic of Ecuador has committed to
satisfy this award and the time has come to fulfill that
commitment," Chevron spokesman Morgan Crinklaw said in a
statement. "Any attempt by those behind the case against Chevron
in Ecuador to disrupt payment of this award would be in
furtherance of their corrupt scheme, which has already been found
by a U.S. federal court to be an 'egregious fraud.'"
Donziger's Quito-based colleague Pablo Fajardo emphasized that his
clients "have a lawful right to obtain this arbitral award and
other company assets until their judgment is fully satisfied."
"Our people are suffering from a humanitarian crisis and many
lives are at stake because Chevron, unlike BP in the United
States, refuses to pay to clean up its own pollution," Fajardo
added.
Chevron continues to deny and downplay the environmental and
public health toll of Texaco's drilling.
Even though he ruled in Chevron's favor, Kaplan remarked that
cleaning up the Amazon would be "desirable and overdue," but he
sidestepped the issue of liability for the contamination to focus
on the alleged fraud.
CLINTON GOURMET: Faces "Tenorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Tenorio, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Clinton Gourmet Corp. (d/b/a Clinton Gourmet Deli),
and Wadah Abdulla Arubye, Case No. 1:14-cv-07903 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.
The Defendants own and operate a Deli located at 648 10th Avenue,
New York, New York 10036.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
COMVERSE INC: Unit Named as Defendants in 4 Israel Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2014, that Comverse Technology, Inc., and certain
of its former subsidiaries, including Comverse Ltd. (a subsidiary
of the Company), were named as defendants in four potential class
action litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to
recover damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or
breach of contract due to previously-settled allegations regarding
illegal backdating of CTI options that allegedly prevented certain
current or former employees from exercising certain stock options.
The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions.
COMVERSE INC: Summations on Behalf of Defendants Due October 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2014, that two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv
District Court against Comverse Technology, Inc., on March 26,
2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd. employee) and
Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The Katriel case
(Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case Number 1335/09)
both seek to approve class actions to recover damages that are
claimed to have been incurred as a result of CTI's negligence in
reporting and filing its financial statements, which allegedly
prevented the exercise of certain stock options by certain
employees and former employees.
By stipulation of the parties, on September 30, 2009, the court
ordered that these cases, including all claims against CTI in
Israel and the motion to approve the class action, be stayed until
resolution of the actions pending in the United States regarding
stock option accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability
to investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.
On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiffs have
filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action. The defendants
responded to this amended complaint on November 11, 2012, and the
plaintiffs filed a further reply on December 20, 2012. A pre-trial
hearing for the case was held on December 25, 2012, during which
all parties agreed to attempt to settle the dispute through
mediation.
The mediation process ended without success. According to the
parties' consent to submit summations in the motion to certify the
claims as a class action, including the certification of the class
of plaintiffs, the court held the following dates for submission
of summations: Summations on behalf of the plaintiffs were
submitted on August 31, 2014; Summations on behalf of the
defendants will be submitted by October 31, 2014; Summations of
response by the plaintiffs will be submitted by November 30, 2014.
Separately, on July 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an
order that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a reserve to
satisfy any potential damage awards that may be awarded in this
case, but did not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution. The
Company does not believe that the motion has merit. On July 25,
2012, the court decided that it will not rule on the motion until
after it rules on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs. On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to appeal the court's decision to the Israeli Supreme Court
(the "Appeal") and on November 11, 2012, CTI responded to
plaintiff's motion.
On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to the Supreme
Court to withdraw the Appeal and accordingly the Appeal was
dismissed.
COMVERSE INC: Katriel & Deutsch Cases Moved to Tel Aviv Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2014, that two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv
Labor Court by plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to
approve class actions to recover damages that are claimed to have
been incurred as a result of breached employment contracts, which
allegedly prevented the exercise by certain employees and former
employees of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively.
The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March
16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case
Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd. The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court. These cases have been consolidated with the Tel
Aviv District Court cases.
The Company did not accrue for these matters as the potential loss
is currently not probable or estimable.
DEALERSHIP MANAGEMENT: Removes "Thompson" Suit to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Thompson, et al. v. Dealership
Management Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-2014-CA-38293, was
removed from the Brevard County Circuit Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-01592-RBD-DAB to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act over
unpaid wages.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hunter Alston Higdon, Esq.
CONNELL HIGDON
1775 W Hibiscus Blvd., Suite 102
Melbourne, FL 32901
Telephone: (321) 444-4444
Facsimile: (321) 802-5034
E-mail: hunter@connellhigdon.com
Defendants Dealership Management Services, Inc., and Timothy
Puffer are represented by:
Trizia Ginarella Eavenson, Esq.
MOORE EAVENSON BAUGHAN, PLC
895 Barton Blvd., Suite B
Rockledge, FL 32955
Telephone: (321) 636-2221
Facsimile: (321) 636-2224
E-mail: Trizia@MEBLawFirm.com
Defendants TT of Brevard, Inc., TT of Melbourne, Inc., Christopher
Heinze, T.R. Paige and Terry Taylor are represented by:
Scott W. Atherton, Esq.
ATHERTON LAW GROUP, P.A.
224 Datura St., #815
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6151
Telephone: (561) 293-2530
Facsimile: (561) 293-2593
E-mail: scott@athertonlg.com
DIRECTV LLC: "Miller" Suit Moved From S.D. to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Tara Miller v. Directv, LLC,
Case No. 3:13-cv-02073, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The
Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-07579-FMO-
SH to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
HYDE AND SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
- and -
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
ml@kazlg.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James Scott Scheper, Esq.
SELTZER CAPLAN MCMAHON VITEK
750 B Street 2100 Symphony Towers
San Diego, CA 92101-8177
Telephone: (619) 685-3003
Facsimile: (619) 702-6835
E-mail: scheper@scmv.com
- and -
Rebecca J. Wahlquist, Esq.
SNELL AND WILMER LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 929-2544
Facsimile: (213) 929-2525
E-mail: bwahlquist@swlaw.com
DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Cir. Upheld $1BB Penalty in Price Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical owes a class of industrial purchasers of polyurethane
products more than $1 billion for fixing prices, reports Lacey
Louwagie at Courthouse News Service, citing a 10th Circuit ruling.
The Midland, Mich.-based Dow had been the only manufacturer not to
settle allegations that it conspired with Bayer, BASF Corp.,
Huntsman International and Lyondell Chemical Co., to fix
polyurethane prices from 1999 to 2003.
Seegott Holdings, Industrial Polymers and Quabaug Corp. were named
as plaintiffs. They alleged that executives for these companies
took advantage of a January 1999 depression in the polyurethane
market to coordinate "lockstep" price-increase announcements and
that they then made stick in individual contract negotiations.
After a federal judge in Kansas certified a plaintiff class, a
jury calculated damages at $400 million. The court trebled the
damages, deducted the amounts that Dow's co-conspirators paid in
settlements, and arrived at a judgment of $1.06 billion.
A three-judge panel with the 10th Circuit affirmed on Sept. 29,
2014, rejecting claims that the court should have required each
class member to prove harm from the conspiracy.
Noting that "price-fixing affects all market participants,
creating an inference of class-wide impact even when prices are
individually negotiated," the decision's author Judge Robert
Bacharach said "class-wide proof is not required for all issues."
Dow also failed to challenge projections by an expert witness as
"unreliable"or to show that evidence of Dow's liability had been
insufficient, the court found.
In fact the issue of the expert witness's projections were
irrelevant because "the plaintiffs did not seek to prove Dow's
liability through extrapolation," Bacharach said.
"Rather, Dow's liability as to each class member was proven
through common evidence; extrapolation was only used to
approximate damages," he added.
As to Dow's claim of insufficient liability, Bacharach said "the
evidence included admissions by industry insiders, collusive
behavior, susceptibility of the industry to collusion, and setting
of prices at a supra competitive level."
Earlier this month, the 5th Circuit upheld a judgment for the
Internal Revenue Service based on Dow's "sham partnerships" with
foreign banks to evade taxes.
The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:
Carter G. Phillips, Esq.
Joseph R. Guerra, Esq.
C. Frederick Beckner III, Esq.
Kathleen Moriarty Mueller, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Beelaert, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (202) 736-8270
Facsimile: (312) 853-3587
E-mail: cphillips@sidley.com
jguerra@sidley.com
rbeckner@sidley.com
kmueller@sidley.com
- and -
Charles J. Kalil, Esq., General Counsel
Duncan A. Stuart, Esq., Associate General Counsel
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
Midland, MI
The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:
Paul D. Clement, Esq.
Zachary D. Tripp, Esq.
Candice Chiu, Esq.
William R. Levi, Esq.
BANCROFT PLLC
1919 M. Street, NW, Suite 470
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 234-0090
Facsimile: (202) 234-2806
E-mail: pclement@bancroftpllc.com
ztripp@bancroftpllc.com
cchiu@bancroftpllc.com
wlevi@bancroftpllc.com
- and -
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
Matthew Duncan, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
dperelman@finekaplan.com
gdever@finekaplan.com
mduncan@finekaplan.com
- and -
Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
Laura A. Alexander, Esq.
COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
West Tower, Suite 500
1100 New York Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3934
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
ccormier@cohenmilstein.com
srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
lalexander@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD, P.A.
20 First Plaza, Suite 700
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 842-9960
Facsimile: (505) 842-0761
E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Guzman, Esq.
Rebecca A. Beynon, Esq.
Michael N. Nemelka, Esq.
KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036-3209
Telephone: (202) 326-7900
Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
E-mail: mguzman@khhte.com
rbeynon@khhte.com
mnemelka@khhte.com
- and -
Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
Roger N. Walter, 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
rwalter@morrislaing.com
Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States is
represented by:
Kathryn Comerford Todd, Esq.
Tyler R. Green, Esq.
U.S. CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER
1615 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20062
Telephone: (202) 463-5337
Facsimile: (202) 463-5346
E-mail: KTodd@USChamber.com
tgreen@USChamber.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
George E. Mastoris, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-4193
Telephone: (212) 294-6700
Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
gmastoris@winston.com
- and -
Gene C. Schaerr, Esq.
Robert F. Ruyak, Esq.
William A. Roach, Jr., Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
1700 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-3817
Telephone: (202) 282-5000
Facsimile: (202) 282-5100
E-mail: rruyak@winston.com
wroach@winston.com
Amicus Curiae American Independent Business Alliance is
represented by:
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
LIEF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
jlichtman@lchb.com
- and -
Jordan Elias, Esq.
LIEF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
San Francisco, CA
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: jelias@lchb.com
- and -
Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
Rachel M. Brown, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY, LLP
Seaport East
Two Seaport Lane
Boston MA, 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: imcloughlin@shulaw.com
rbrown@shulaw.com
The appellate case is Dow Chemical Company, Appellant v. Seegott
Holdings, Inc.; Industrial Polymers, Inc.; Quabaug Corporation,
(Class Plaintiffs), Appellees, and Chamber of Commerce of the
United States and American Independent Business Alliance, Amici
Curiae, Case No. 13-3215, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit. The multidistrict litigation is In Re:
Urethane Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 04-MD-01616-JWL-JPO, in
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
DPD SUB: Sued in D. Colorado Over Misleading Franchise Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Whitford, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons v. DPD Sub, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and DPI
Sub, Inc. a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02684 (D.
Colo., September 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
material misrepresentations or omissions in the Franchise
Disclosure Document and Agreement.
The Defendants offer and sell Doc Popcorn franchises to
franchisees.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Matthew Grant, Esq.
GOODREID GRANT & KUHN, LLC
1801 Broadway, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (720) 545-0883
Facsimile: (303) 985-4241
E-mail: pgrant@ggklaw.com
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Has Pre-Tax $0.5MM Charge for Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended July 26, 2014, that costs of earned revenues
increased to $1,300.4 million during fiscal 2013 compared to
$968.9 million during fiscal 2012. The increase was primarily due
to a higher level of operations during fiscal 2013, including
costs of the businesses acquired in fiscal 2013. The primary
components of the total increase was a $235.8 million aggregate
increase in direct labor and independent subcontractor costs, a
$41.2 million increase in direct material costs, and an aggregate
$54.5 million increase in other direct costs, including a pre-tax
$0.5 million charge for a wage and hour class action settlement.
Dycom Industries, Inc. is a provider of specialty contracting
services throughout the United States and in Canada.
ECHOSPHERE LLC: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Altamirano" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Altamirano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Echosphere L.L.C., Echostar Satellite
Prods., Inc., Dish Network L.L.C., and Dish Network Serv. L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02677(D. Colo., September 30, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendants provide sales, distribution, installation, and
satellite television services throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
711 West Alabama Street
The Stanford Mansion
Houston, TX 77006-5005
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com
EI DU PONT: Poisoning Suits Moved to West Virginia District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yawana Wolfe, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
thousands of lawsuits accusing a Du Pont plant of poisoning people
for 50 years have been transferred to Federal Court from a West
Virginia county court.
The lawsuits, still being transferred out of Wood County Circuit
Court, claim that Du Pont knew for decades that its Washington
Works Plant in Parkersburg, W. Va., where it used chemicals to
make Teflon, poisoned the air and water-and that Du Pont knew it
but covered it up.
The plaintiffs claim that the chemicals, C-8 (ammonium
perfluorooctanoate) and perfluorooctanoic acid, gave their
children birth defects, and caused sterility and other problems.
Six water districts were affected - Little Hocking, the City of
Belpre, Tuppers Plains, and the Village of Pomeroy, all in Ohio,
and Lubeck Public Service District, and Mason County Public
Service District, in West Virginia. Private wells also were
affected.
The plaintiffs claim the pollution began in the 1950s and
continued for 50 years or more, and that Du Pont knew how
dangerous the chemical was, but continued to release it into the
air and water. Many complaints claim that a 1981 pregnancy study,
which Du Pont conducted, indicated that two out of seven babies
born to women who worked at the plant, and exposed to C-8 through
manufacturing, gave birth to children with facial defects.
The study indicated that the chemical could cross the placenta
from the C-8-exposed mother to her child, according to one class
action. Du Pont was well aware by then that the chemical was
being released into the air near the plant, the complaints state.
In 1982, Du Pont reported to the EPA that eye defects observed in
its study were not caused by C-8 exposure, and fraudulently failed
to disclose the findings from its 1981 study on pregnant women,
the plaintiffs claim. By 1984, male workers at the plant
complained that their wives were having difficulties conceiving,
but Du Pont failed to investigate, according to the complaints.
Also in 1984, Du Pont collected samples of tap water from area
businesses and own homes, and concluded that C-8 had indeed
contaminated the public water supply, the plaintiffs say.
Du Pont called a meeting at its corporate headquarters in
Wilmington, Del. to discuss the issues surrounding C-8. At the
meeting, Du Pont executives allegedly decided that options
eliminating C-8 at the plant would cost them $200 million a year
in lost profits.
By 1988, laboratory rats exposed to C-8 were shown to have
increased rates of certain cancers, most notably testicular
cancer. Despite these findings and others, Du Pont continued to
use C-8 in its manufacturing throughout the 1990's and 2000's, the
class claims.
The plaintiffs claim that Du Pont actually increased its use of
the chemical, and increased the amount of C-8 released into the
atmosphere and water, by releasing the chemical directly into the
Ohio River and into unlined hazardous waste landfills.
By May of 2000, Du Pont's supplier of C-8, 3M, decided to stop
manufacturing and selling C-8 due to increased concern over its
safety, so Du Pont began making its own C-8 at a plant in North
Carolina, according to the lawsuits.
In September 2001, after a farmer claimed in court that his cattle
had been poisoned by river water, Du Pont's in-house counsel on C-
8 issues wrote: "I can't blame people if they don't want to drink
our chemicals. The compound . . . is very persistent in the
environment, and on top of that, loves to travel in water and if
ingested or breathed wants to stay in the blood, the body thinks
it is food, so pulls it from the intestine, the liver then dumps
it back to the stomach because it can't break it down, then the
intestines puts it right back into the blood," according to a 2005
settlement of the class action, Leach et al. c E.I. DuPont
deNemours.
One recent federal case, filed Sept. 18 in Charleston Federal
Court, recapitulates these charges on behalf of a single
plaintiff.
ENZYMOTEC LTD: Faces "Moorefield" Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis W. Moorefield, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Enzymotec Ltd., Ariel Katz, Oren Bryan,
Jacob (Yaacov) Bachar, Nir Belzer, Yoav Doppelt, Steve Dubin, Dov
Pekelman, Yossi Peled, Michal Silverberg, Joseph Tenne, Imanuel
Wasserman, Yossi Ohana, Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Jefferies Llc, Canaccord Genuity Inc., Wedbush
Securities Inc. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-
06075-FSH-JBC (D.N.J., September 30, 2014) is a federal securities
class action accusing the Defendants of engaging in a fraudulent
scheme to artificially inflate Enzymotec's stock price.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Enzymotec securities pursuant or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on
September 27, 2013, and on behalf of all investors, who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between September
27, 2013, and August 4, 2014, inclusive.
Enzymotec, a global supplier of specialty lipid- based products
and solutions, is incorporated in Israel and maintains offices in
Morristown, New Jersey. The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.
Merrill Lynch, Jefferies, Canaccord, Wedbush, and Wells Fargo
served as underwriters to Enzymotec in connection with the
Offering.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
LTaylor@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Katharine Ryan, Esq.
RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
Wayne, PA 19087
Telephone: (484) 588-5516
E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
kryan@rmclasslaw.com
FIRST FINANCIAL: Sued Over Illegal Retention of Sales Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Do, Lue Lee, Tata Insixiengmay-Tran, and Polly Luangaphay,
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated v. First
Financial Security, Inc., Phillip Gerlicher, and Laura Manzer,
Case No. 2:14-cv-07608 (C.D. Cal., September 30, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violation its contract with its former
agents, has failed and refused to pay these agents the sales
commissions it owes them.
The Defendants own and operate a financial services brokerage
agency.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon E. Drucker, Esq.
JON E. DRUCKER LAW OFFICES
8306 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 638
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (323) 931-6363
Facsimile: (310) 861-5480
E-mail: jdrucker@lawyers.com
GREENVILLE COUNTY, SC: Faces Suit Over Violation of Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
CFRE LLC and Sherry T. Ray, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Debbie H. Adkins, individually and in her
official capacity as Greenville County Assessor; Real Property
Services; Jill Kintigh, in her official capacity as Greenville
County Treasurer; Joseph Kernell, in his official capacity as
Greenville County Administrator; and John/Jane Doe, individually
and in his/her/their official capacities, Case No. 8:14-cv-03825-
TMC (D.S.C., September 30, 2014) alleges violation of Civil
Rights.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James L Goldsmith, Jr., Esq.
GOLDSMITH LAW FIRM
PO Box 14186
Greenville, SC 29610
Telephone: (864) 232-9911
E-mail: skipgold@bellsouth.net
- and -
John William Ray, Esq.
J. WILLIAM RAY LAW OFFICE
700 E North Street
Greenville, SC 29604
Telephone: (864) 313-5332
Facsimile: (888) 633-1283
E-mail: jr@att.net
GSJ RESTAURANT: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Antonio Flores, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. G. S. J. Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a
Katonah Restaurant, George Sfyris, and Chrys Simos, jointly and
severally, Case No. 7:14-cv-07910 (S.D.N.Y., September 30, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation
and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate Katonah Restaurant located in
Westchester County, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
John Gurrieri, Esq.
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
Jazeller@zellerlegal.com
GSJ RESTAURANT: Faces 2nd "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Antonio Flores, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. G. S. J. Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a
Katonah Restaurant, George Sfyris, and Chrys Simos, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-07910 (S.D.N.Y., September 30, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation
and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate Katonah Restaurant located in
Westchester County, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
John Gurrieri, Esq.
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
Jazeller@zellerlegal.com
HAPPY FOODS: Faces "Chacon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herber Josue Morataya Chacon, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Happy Foods, Inc. and William
Tarant, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07639 (N.D. Ill., September
30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.
Happy Foods, Inc. owns and operates a full service grocery store.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (877) 509-6422
Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Provides Update on "Cunningham" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Cunningham and
Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a
purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly involved
in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware
were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported
collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007, is also now
pending in the same court alleging similar facts. The Steavens
case has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the
Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court granted
conditional certification of a class consisting of employees in 20
legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham and Steavens
matter. Approximately 2,600 current and former EDS employees have
filed consents to opt in to the litigation. The plaintiffs had
alleged separate "opt-out" classes based on the overtime laws of
the states of California, Washington, Massachusetts and New York,
but the plaintiffs have dismissed those claims.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Salva" Case Stayed by Court
---------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Salva v. Hewlett-
Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on June 15,
2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District
of New York alleging that certain information technology employees
allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer
software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. On August 31, 2012, HP filed its
answer to the plaintiffs' complaint and filed counterclaims
against two of the three named plaintiffs. Also on August 31,
2012, HP filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A hearing on
HP's motion to transfer venue was scheduled for November 21, 2012,
but was stayed by the court.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Karlbom" Case Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Karlbom, et al. v.
Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed on
March 16, 2009 in California Superior Court alleging facts similar
to the Cunningham and Steavens matters. In March 2010, the court
stayed the matter; that stay was lifted in October 2012. On
December 13, 2013, HP removed the case to federal court. The
plaintiffs moved to remand the case; the case was subsequently
remanded to state court.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Blake" Parties Submitted Confidential Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Blake, et al. v.
Hewlett-Packard Company was filed as a purported nationwide
collective action on February 17, 2011 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming that a
class of information technology support personnel had been
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. On February 10, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the court conditionally certify the case as a
collective action. On July 11, 2013, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in its entirety.
Following the denial of class certification, the case has
continued as an individual action on behalf of the named plaintiff
and one other employee. The parties have reached an agreement to
resolve this matter with the two plaintiffs agreeing to settle
their individual claims and release any other claims they may have
against HP. The parties have submitted their confidential
settlement agreement and release of claims to the court for
approval.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in "Benedict"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Benedict v. Hewlett-
Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on January
10, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that certain technical support
employees allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or
supporting computer software and/or hardware for HP were
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP violated California
law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these
employees as exempt. On September 20, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for conditional class certification. On February 13, 2014,
the court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: 9th Cir. Set Oral Argument in Pension Fund Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Saginaw Police & Fire
Pension Fund v. Marc L. Andreessen, et al. is a lawsuit filed on
October 19, 2010 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly
enriched by consciously disregarding HP's alleged violations of
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"). On August 15, 2011,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 21,
2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the
court entered judgment in the defendants' favor and closed the
case on May 29, 2012. On June 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed and the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit scheduled oral argument for
September 9, 2014.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Oral Argument Not Yet Set in "Copeland I" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that A.J. Copeland v.
Raymond J. Lane, et al. ("Copeland I") is a lawsuit filed on March
7, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate
assets in connection with HP's alleged violations of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), HP's severance payments made to
Mark Hurd (a former Chairman of HP's Board of Directors and HP's
Chief Executive Officer), and HP's acquisition of 3PAR Inc. The
lawsuit also alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with HP's
2010 and 2011 proxy statements. On February 8, 2012, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On October 10,
2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with
leave to file an amended complaint. On November 1, 2012, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an unjust enrichment
claim and claims that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with HP's 2012 proxy statement. On December 13, 14 and 17, 2012,
the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December
28, 2012, the plaintiff moved for leave to file a third amended
complaint. On May 6, 2013, the court denied the motion for leave
to amend, granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice and
entered judgment in the defendants' favor. On May 31, 2013, the
plaintiff filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed, but a
date has not yet been set for oral argument.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Granted Stipulation to Stay "Copeland II"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that A.J. Copeland v. L‚o
Apotheker, et al. ("Copeland II") is a lawsuit filed on February
10, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging, among other things, that the
defendants used their control over HP and its corporate suffrage
process in effectuating, directly participating in and/or aiding
and abetting violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of
the duty of candor. The claims arise out of the circumstances at
HP relating to its 2013 and 2014 proxy statements, the departure
of Mr. Hurd as Chairman of HP's Board of Directors and HP's Chief
Executive Officer, alleged violations of the FCPA, and HP's
acquisition of 3PAR Inc. and Autonomy Corporation plc
("Autonomy"). On February 25, 2014, the court issued an order
granting HP's administrative motion to relate Copeland II to
Copeland I. On April 8, 2014, the court granted the parties'
stipulation to stay the action pending resolution of Copeland I by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Company, Insurers Pay $57MM in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-
Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action
filed on September 13, 2011 in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California alleging, among other
things, that from November 22, 2010 to August 18, 2011, the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by concealing material information and making false statements
about HP's business model, the future of the webOS operating
system, and HP's commitment to developing and integrating webOS
products, including the TouchPad tablet PC. On April 11, 2012, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On September 4,
2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and gave
the plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. On October 19,
2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same
causes of action but dropping one of the defendants and shortening
the period that the alleged violations of the Exchange Act
occurred to February 9, 2011 to August 18, 2011. On December 3,
2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On
May 8, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
in part and denied it in part. As a result of the court's ruling,
the alleged class period in the action runs from June 1, 2011 to
August 18, 2011. The parties commenced mediation before a private
mediator on December 3, 2013. On March 31, 2014, the parties
executed a settlement stipulation and the plaintiff filed a motion
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement with the court. On
May 2, 2014, the court preliminarily approved the settlement,
directed notice be sent to class members, and set the final
approval hearing for September 15, 2014. On August 11, 2014, the
lead plaintiff filed a motion for approval of the settlement. As
part of the proposed settlement, HP and certain of its insurers
paid approximately $57 million into a settlement fund.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jury Trial to Begin July 2015 in "Espinoza" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Ernesto Espinoza v. L‚o
Apotheker, et al. and Larry Salat v. L‚o Apotheker, et al. are
consolidated lawsuits filed on September 21, 2011 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material
information and making false statements about HP's business model
and the future of webOS, the TouchPad and HP's PC business. The
lawsuits also allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched when
they authorized HP's repurchase of its own stock on August 29,
2010 and July 21, 2011. These lawsuits were previously stayed
pending developments in the Gammel matter, but those stays have
been lifted. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint on August 21, 2013, and, on October 28, 2013, the
defendants filed a motion to stay these matters. In an order dated
February 13, 2014, the court granted the motion to stay. At the
August 11, 2014 status conference, the stay was lifted. The
plaintiffs had until September 24, 2014 to either file an amended
complaint or designate the current complaint as the operative
complaint. By October 1, 2014, the parties must submit a proposed
schedule for responsive pleadings. The court has scheduled a jury
trial to begin on July 14, 2015.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: November 17 Status Conference in "Gonzalez" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Luis Gonzalez v. L‚o
Apotheker, et al. and Richard Tyner v. L‚o Apotheker, et al. are
consolidated lawsuits filed on September 29, 2011 and October 5,
2011, respectively, in California Superior Court alleging, among
other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties,
wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched by concealing
material information and making false statements about HP's
business model and the future of webOS, the TouchPad and HP's PC
business and by authorizing HP's repurchase of its own stock on
August 29, 2010 and July 21, 2011. The lawsuits are currently
stayed pending resolution of the Espinoza/Salat consolidated
action in federal court. The court has scheduled a status
conference for November 17, 2014.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Cement & Concrete Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Cement & Concrete
Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company,
et al. is a putative securities class action filed on August 3,
2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13,
2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP's
Standards of Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and
misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the
SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized
his continued employment with HP. On February 7, 2013, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9,
2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with
leave to amend the complaint by September 9, 2013. The plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the
defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 24, 2013. A
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint
was held on May 29, 2014. On June 25, 2014, the court issued an
order granting defendants' motions to dismiss. On July 25, 2014,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Second Amended Complaint Filed in ERISA Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that In re HP ERISA
Litigation consists of three consolidated putative class actions
filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among
other things, that from August 18, 2011 to November 22, 2012, the
defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to HP's 401(k)
Plan and its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1)
and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended, by concealing negative information regarding the
financial performance of Autonomy and HP's enterprise services
business and by failing to restrict participants from investing in
HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On March 31, 2014, the court granted HP's motion to
dismiss this action with leave to amend. On July 16, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint containing
substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially
similar relief as the first amended complaint.
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Sound" Class Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sound Community Bank, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03148-ODE (N.D.
Ga., September 30, 2014) is brought on behalf of banks, credit
unions and other financial institutions that suffered injury as a
result of an alleged massive security breach, extending from April
2014 until mid-September 2014 that compromised the sensitive
financial data of at least 56 million Home Depot customers.
The Plaintiff is a state-chartered commercial bank headquartered
in Seattle, Washington. The Bank provides banking services for
both individual and business customers throughout the state of
Washington. The Plaintiff's customers had their personal and
financial information stolen as a result of the Home Depot Data
Breach.
The Home Depot, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Home Depot
operates a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of
merchandise, including tools, home goods, and construction
supplies. Home Depot operates over 2,200 stores in the United
States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
8 East Liberty Street
Savannah, GA 31412
Telephone: (912) 447-8400
Facsimile: (912) 233-6584
E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com
- and -
Hank Bates, Esq.
Allen Carney, Esq.
David Slade, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
acarney@cbplaw.com
dslade@cbplaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq.
Deborah M. Nelson, Esq.
NELSON BOYD, PLLC
411 University Street, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 971-7601
E-mail: boyd@nelsonboydlaw.com
nelson@nelsonboydlaw.com
IKO MANUFACTURING: Falsely Marketed Shingles Products, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Machuzak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Iko Manufacturing Inc., Iko Industries Inc.,
Iko Industries Ltd., Iko Midwest Inc., and Iko Production Inc.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-01895 (M.D. Pa., September 30, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for false misrepresentations regarding the
qualities of its IKO Shingles as durable, and as offering long-
lasting protection for a specified life ranging from 20 to 50
years, or in some cases, for a lifetime.
The Defendants are leading North American manufacturers of roofing
materials.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-2300
E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
INDYMAC MBS: Pension Plans Can't Intervene in Supreme Court Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pension plans will not make it to the Supreme Court after all to
intervene in a challenge against IndyMac, the justices said on
September 29, 2014, according to Barbara Leonard at Courthouse
News Service.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, the original jurist to dismiss
their claims for lack of standing, had defined such certificates
"a type of mortgage-backed security that entitles its owner to a
portion of the revenue stream generated by an underlying pool of
residential mortgage loans."
"IndyMac Bank originated or acquired the individual mortgage loans
that underlie the certificates," he wrote. "The loans then were
transferred to IndyMac MBS, which bundled them into groups, or
pools. The pools were transferred to issuing trusts, which
created the certificates. The issuing trusts then transferred the
certificates to IndyMac MBS which, in turn, sold them to the
specific underwriters for each offering. After the certificates
were rated by rating agencies, the underwriters offered them to
investors."
In separate lawsuits, the Police and Fire Retirement System of the
City of Detroit and the Wyoming State Treasurer and the Wyoming
Retirement System had hoped to represent a class of those who
bought certificates in some of the 106 offerings.
After consolidating the actions and naming the Wyoming entities
lead plaintiff, Kaplan refused to consider claims arising from the
purchase of securities that the Wyoming entities had not bought.
The Detroit PFRS and other asserted members of the class, none of
which were named as plaintiffs, moved to intervene so that they
could assert claims on behalf of the certificates they purchased,
but they had already missed the three-year statute of repose in
Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933.
In a bid to toll the statute, the intervenors cited the 1974
Supreme Court opinion, American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.
Kaplan dismissed that argument in 2011, however, as well as the
alternative theory that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(c)
would let the intervenors "relate back" the proposed amended
complaint.
This led to an unsuccessful appeal in the 2nd Circuit by Detroit
Retirement, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement System aka
LACERA and the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
aka PERS.
Though the Supreme Court granted PERS a writ of certiorari this
past March, it dismissed the writ late September 29 as
improvidently granted.
The order, issued near the eve of its next term, gives no other
details.
The case is Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
IndyMac MBS, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-640, in the U.S. Supreme
Court.
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Sued in Ind. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Banes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kevin M. Modany, Daniel M. Fitzpatrick, and ITT
Educational Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01599 (S.D. Ind.,
September 30, 2014), alleges that during the Class Period, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.
ITT Educational Services, Inc. is a provider of postsecondary
degree programs in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald J. Waicukauski, Esq.
Brad A. Catlin, Esq.
PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, LLC
301 Massachusetts Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 633-8787
Facsimile: (317) 633-8797
Email: rwaicukauski@price-law.com
bcatlin@price-law.com
- and -
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: One Defendant Dropped in Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed one of the other two company
defendants without prejudice in a royalties class action, Layne
Christensen Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.
On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class
action suit against three of Layne's subsidiaries previously
engaged in oil and gas production activities and two other
companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners
from 2004 to the present. Plaintiff essentially alleges that Layne
and the two other companies allocated the market for mineral
leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the
state of Kansas. The plaintiff's suit was initially filed in the
District Court of Wilson County, Kansas. On July 3, 2013, the case
was removed by a co-defendant to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas. On April 1, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed one of the other two company defendants without
prejudice. The case is still in the early stages of the
proceedings, but Layne believes it has meritorious legal position
and will continue to represent and defend Layne's interests
vigorously in this matter.
Layne Christensen Company and subsidiaries is a global water
management, construction and drilling company, providing
responsible solutions for water, mineral and energy challenges.
Layne operates throughout North America as well as in parts of
Africa, Australia, South America, and Italy. Its customers include
government agencies, investor-owned water utilities, industrial
companies, global mining companies, consulting and engineering
firms, heavy civil construction contractors, oil and gas companies
and agribusinesses. Layne has an ownership interest in certain
foreign affiliates operating in Latin America.
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Provides Update on Data Privacy Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2014, that the Company is
a defendant in a putative class action, In Re: Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Backup Tape Data
Theft Litigation, a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The MDL action
consolidates for pretrial proceedings the following seven
individual putative class action lawsuits filed against the
Company from October 2011 through March 2012: (1) Richardson, et
al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications
International Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et
al. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; (2)
Arellano, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas; (3) Biggerman, et al. v. TRICARE
Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (4)Moskowitz, et al.
v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (5) Palmer, et al. v.
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al., in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (6) Losack, et al. v.
SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California; and (7) Deatrick v. Science Applications International
Corporation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The lawsuits were filed following the theft of computer backup
tapes from a vehicle of a Company employee. The employee was
transporting the backup tapes between federal facilities under an
IT services contract the Company was performing in support of
TRICARE, the health care program for members of the military,
retirees and their families. The tapes contained personally
identifiable and protected health information of approximately
five million military clinic and hospital patients. There is no
evidence that any of the data on the backup tapes has actually
been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized person. In order for an
unauthorized person to access or view the data on the backup
tapes, it would require knowledge of and access to specific
hardware and software and knowledge of the system and data
structure. The Company has notified potentially impacted persons
by letter and has offered one year of credit monitoring services
to those who request these services and in certain circumstances,
one year of identity restoration services.
In October 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the MDL action, which supersedes all previously filed
complaints in the individual lawsuits. The consolidated amended
complaint includes allegations of negligence, breach of contract,
breach of implied-in-fact contract, invasion of privacy by public
disclosure of private facts and statutory violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, California data breach notification
requirements, the California Unfair Competition Law, various state
consumer protection or deceptive practices statutes, state privacy
statutes, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of
1974. The consolidated amended complaint sought monetary relief,
including unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages of $1,000 for each class member and attorneys' fees, as
well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs
from the MDL action and ordered a status hearing before taking up
the question of whether the two remaining plaintiffs have stated a
legal claim. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant, TRICARE,
entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two
plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice.
At this time, Leidos does not expect the other plaintiffs, whose
claims were dismissed by the District Court in May, to appeal
their dismissal. As of August 1, 2014, the Company has no
liability recorded related to these lawsuits.
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. are an applied technology
company delivering solutions and services that leverage the power
of data analytics, systems integration, and cyber security across
three markets of national security, health, and engineering to
agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the
intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
and other U.S. Government civil agencies, state and local
government agencies, foreign governments, and customers across a
variety of commercial markets. The Companies operate in the
following segments: National Security Solutions, Health and
Engineering, and Corporate and Other.
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Seek to Vacate Court Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2014, that between
February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative
securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two cases
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation.
The consolidated securities complaint names as defendants the
Company, its chief financial officer, two former chief executive
officers, a former group president and the former program manager
on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007
through September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and
individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions
about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal
controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime
project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the
individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class
members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated
price.
On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs have moved
to vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. are an applied technology
company delivering solutions and services that leverage the power
of data analytics, systems integration, and cyber security across
three markets of national security, health, and engineering to
agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the
intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
and other U.S. Government civil agencies, state and local
government agencies, foreign governments, and customers across a
variety of commercial markets. The Companies operate in the
following segments: National Security Solutions, Health and
Engineering, and Corporate and Other.
LEONISCHE HOLDING: Accused of Fixing Wire Harness Products Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar-Scott, Inc., Paesano Connecting Systems, Inc., Mexican
Industries in Michigan, Inc., Martinez Manufacturing, Inc., South
Star Corporation, Craft-Co Enterprises, Inc., and Findlay
Industries, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Leoni Bordnetz-Systeme GMBH, Leoni Wiring Systems
Inc., and Leonische Holding, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-13773 (E.D.
Mich., September 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired
to rig bids for, and to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the
prices of, Wire Harness Products sold in the United States from at
least as early as January 1, 2000 until at least February 28,
2010.
The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Wire Harness Products
throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Fink, Esq.
Darryl Bressack, Esq.
FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
100 West Long Lake Road; Ste. 111
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
Randall B. Weill, Esq.
Michael S. Smith, Esq.
PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112-9546
Telephone: (207) 791-3000
E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
rweill@preti.com
msmith@preti.com
- and -
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
whoese@kohnswift.com
dabrahams@kohnswift.com
- and -
Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
William H. London, Esq.
Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
blondon@fklmlaw.com
mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
msilverman@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
bcaldes@srkw-law.com
jjagher@srkw-law.com
jspector@srkw-law.com
MCF CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Sanchez v. M.C.F. Construction, Roofing, and Consultants,
Inc. and Kenneth J. Tafoya, Case No. 1:14-cv-23621-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
September 30, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff earned but did not
receive from the Defendants overtime wages calculated at time and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for time spent working over
40 hours per week.
M.C.F. Construction, Roofing and Consultants, Inc., is a Florida
for-profit corporation. Kenneth J. Tafoya is the President of
M.C.F. The Company is in the business of commercial and
residential maintenance and construction in South Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
FAIRLAW FIRM
8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 230-4884
Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Stocks Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Millennial
Media, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07923 (S.D.N.Y., September
30, 2014), alleges that during the Class Period the Defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price
of Millennial Media's stock.
Millennial Media, Inc. is a digital advertising company that
provides advertising services focused on the mobile computing
segment, such as smart phones that run Apple, Inc.'s iOS operating
system, Google, Inc.'s Android operating system, or other
operating systems.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Michael W. Stacker, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
ebelfi@labaton.com
mstocker@labaton.com
- and -
Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 554 1400
Facsimile: (212) 554 1444
E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
MILLER ENERGY: To Complete Documentation of Settlement This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Energy Resources, Inc., expects to complete full
documentation of a settlement and file a motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement and approval of the class
no later than the first week of October 2014, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.
The Company said, "In August 2011, several purported class action
lawsuits were filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The lawsuits made similar
claims and have been consolidated into one case, styled In re
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation. The suit
names us, along with several of our current and former executive
officers, Scott Boruff, Paul Boyd, Ford Graham, David Hall, David
Voyticky, and Deloy Miller, as defendants. The Plaintiffs allege
two causes of action against the defendants: (1) violation of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The case seeks money damages
against us and the other defendants, and payment of the
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees. We have filed a Motion to Dismiss the
case, which was denied on February 4, 2014 as to all defendants
save Ford Graham. On July 3, 2014, we agreed upon a potential
settlement with the Plaintiffs would dismiss the lawsuit with
prejudice in exchange for a settlement payment of $2,950, which is
within the remaining policy limits of our director and officer
insurance policy. The proposed settlement remains subject to court
approval and class notice administration before it will be
effective. The case has been stayed through and including
September 30, 2014 at the agreement of the Parties while we
finalize the stipulation of settlement and supporting papers.
"We expect to complete full documentation of the settlement and
file a motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement and approval of the class no later than the first week
of October 2014. The estimated potential loss and expected
insurance recovery are accrued on our condensed consolidated
balance sheets as of April 30, 2014 and July 31, 2014."
Miller is an independent exploration and production company that
utilizes seismic data and other technologies for geophysical
exploration, development and operation of oil and gas wells in
southcentral Alaska, including the Cook Inlet and Kenai Peninsula,
and the Appalachian region of east Tennessee.
MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Prisoners Can Sue Over Jail Condition
----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on September 29 found a class of current and
former inmates of the Monterey County Jail has standing to bring
claims of deplorable conditions and dangerous overcrowding,
despite the county's argument that the case is moot because many
original plaintiffs are no longer prisoners there, reports Maria
Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service.
In rejecting the county's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge
Paul Grewal found that the class qualifies as "inherently
transitory," because the court won't have enough time to rule on a
motion for class certification before their incarceration ends.
Most inmates housed at the jail in Salinas are pretrial detainees
who are held for an average of 30 to 40 days.
"The court is persuaded that the short average length of stay of
prisoners in the putative class and the plodding speed of legal
action qualify plaintiffs for the inherently transitory
exception," Grewal wrote.
He added: "The court must focus on the average length of detention
in the county jail and must look at the claims of the class as a
whole rather than plaintiffs' individual claims for relief."
The ruling hinged on whether the inmates had standing when they
brought the action in May 2013, when they sued Monterey County,
the Sheriff's Office and California Forensic Medical Group for
denying prisoners adequate medical and mental health care and
housing them in overcrowded units, causing violence between
prisoners and suicides.
"All plaintiffs may proceed," Grewal wrote.
The judge rejected the medical group's motion to dismiss. It
claimed it cannot be held accountable for the alleged maltreatment
because it does not operate the jail and its services are not
public.
Grewal cited an opinion by his colleague U.S. District Judge
Edward Chen, who wrote: "It is reasonable to consider a jail a
public place in the context of inmates' rights to be free from
discrimination on the basis of their disabilities. While the
general public is not permitted inside a jail at any given time,
the government has the power to compel members of the public to a
jail under certain circumstances." Chen added: "(A) jail is more
like schools and hospitals contemplated under the ADA [Americans
with Disabilities Act], which also restrict public access in
certain times."
Turning back to the Monterey prisoners' case, Grewal wrote: "This
same reasoning makes just as much sense when considering whether
to understand whether place of public accommodation under Title
III also covers private operations within jails. Although
inartful in identifying CFMG [California Forensic Medical Group]
as the accommodation itself, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that CFMG operates a professional office in the actual physical
place of the jail to provide the public accommodation of all
required medical care."
The case is Jesse Hernandez, et al. v. County of Monterey, et al.,
Case No. 5:13-cv-02354-PSG, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
PANASONIC CORPORATION: Restraints Trade of Capacitors, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-04403 (N.D. Cal., September 30, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant restraint the trade of aluminum and tantalum
electrolytic capacitors.
Panasonic Corporation manufactures, sells and distributes aluminum
and tantalum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through
its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the
United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
Natasha Naraghi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M.SCHACK
16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92127
Telephone: (858) 485-6535
Facsimile: (858) 485-0608
E-mail: alexschack@amslawoffice.com
natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com
- and -
Geoffrey J. Spreter, Esq.
SPRETER LEGAL SERVICES, APC
601 3rd Street
Coronado, CA 92118
Telephone: 619-865-7986
E-mail: spreterlegalservices@gmail.com
PARTSSOURCE INC: Removes "Gembarski" Suit to Ohio District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Gembarski v. PartsSource, Inc.,
Case No. 2013-CV-00001, was removed from the Portage County Court
of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio (Akron). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:14-cv-02167-SL to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Trzaska, Esq.
DUBYAK CONNICK THOMPSON & BLOOM
3401 Enterprise Parkway, Suite 205
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 364-0500
Facsimile: (216) 364-0505
E-mail: atrzaska@dctblaw.com
- and -
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
25201 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 375
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 364-0500
Facsimile: (216) 364-0505
E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Helena Oroz, Esq.
Stephen S. Zashin, Esq.
ZASHIN & RICH-CLEVELAND
950 Main Avenue, 4th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 696-4441
Facsimile: (216) 696-1618
E-mail: hot@zrlaw.com
ssz@zrlaw.com
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Sued for Obtaining Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Scolnick on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-13736 (D.
Mass., September 30, 2014), arises from the Defendant's practice
of writing personal identification information on a credit card
transaction form.
Payless Shoesource, Inc. owns and operate retail stores throughout
the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Ilya Shapoval, Esq.
SIPRUT PC
84 Winnisimmet Street
Chelsea, MA 02150
Telephone: (617) 889-5800
Facsimile: (617) 409-9994
E-mail: ashapoval@siprut.com
- and -
Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
Brandon M. Cavanaugh, Esq.
SIPRUT PC
17 North State Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 236-0000
Facsimile: (312) 948-9196
E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
bcavanaugh@siprut.com
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due Nov
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiff's opening brief with respect to the appeal is due
on November 10, 2014 and the Defendants' answering brief is due on
December 10, 2014 in the securities related class action lawsuit,
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.
On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against us
and certain of our executive officers and one consultant
(collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of certain purchasers
of our common stock. The complaints have been brought as purported
stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations
that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the interim results of our bavituximab Phase
II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially inflating the
price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.
On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions
with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)).
After the court issued two separate orders granting the
Defendants' two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the
court issued a third order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice.
On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
respect to the court's order granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss. Lead plaintiff's opening brief with respect to the appeal
is due on November 10, 2014 and the Defendants' answering brief is
due on December 10, 2014.
"We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action, including seeking
dismissal of any amended complaint," the Company said.
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company with a
pipeline of novel drug candidates in clinical trials focused on
the treatment and diagnosis of cancer.
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendants File Answer in "Michaeli"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the case Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., filed
their answer to the complaint on February 5, 2014, Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.
On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class action complaint,
captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL,
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against certain of the Company's executive officers and directors.
The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and executives
breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with
certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by the
Company's Board of Directors during the past three fiscal years,
including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4,
2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to the
Company's directors, executives, all other employees and certain
consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during
the past three fiscal years, of compensation to the Company's non-
employee directors. In addition, the complaint alleges that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by
filing and seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly
materially false and misleading proxy statement for the Company's
2013 annual meeting of stockholders.
The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on February 5,
2014.
"We believe that the derivative and class action complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action," the
Company said.
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company with a
pipeline of novel drug candidates in clinical trials focused on
the treatment and diagnosis of cancer.
PORTO RESTAURANT: "Galicia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sergio Galicia, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Porto Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a
Hollywood Diner, and John Halikias, jointly and severally, Case
No. 1:14-cv-07911 (S.D.N.Y., September 30, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation and other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Porto Restaurant, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant known as
Hollywood Diner and located at 574 Avenue of the Americas, New
York, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
John Gurrieri, Esq.
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
Jazeller@zellerlegal.com
SAKS FIFTH: Removes "Malik" Suit to California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tova Malik v. Saks Fifth Avenue
LLC, et al., Case No. BC555134, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-
cv-07600 to the proceeding.
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy P. Lally, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010
Telephone: (213) 896-6000
Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
E-mail: alally@sidley.com
SCRANTON ENDOSCOPY: Accused of Reusing Unsterilized Equipment
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Scranton colonoscopy center reused unsterilized equipment,
exposing patients to HIV and hepatitis, two married couples claim
in a class action, reports Lana Morelli at Courthouse News
Service.
Lead plaintiff Joy Scarnato claims the Scranton Endoscopy Center
did not "properly clean, sterilize and disinfect a colonoscopy or
colonoscopes" that were used on her and other members of the
class. Scarnato et al. sued The Scranton Endoscopy Center and
Gastrointestinal Consultants of Northeastern Pennsylvania on Sept.
24, in Lackawanna County Court.
Scarnato claims that the Endoscopy Center bought its equipment in
February, but did not even bother to read "any instructions and/or
user manuals provided by the manufacturer." She claims that
anyone who underwent a colonoscopy at the center between January
and August may have undergone "a colonoscopy with an improperly
cleaned and improperly disinfected colonoscope."
The negligence also exposed patients' spouses to the diseases,
Scarnato says. She claims that the Endoscopy Center knew this,
but "despite this knowledge . . . waited months, or until late
August 2014, to inform patients of potential risks."
The center began warning patients in August, via telephone calls,
Scarnato claims. She seeks class certification, medical
monitoring for at least 5 years, and punitive damages for
negligence, She is represented by Michael Pisanchyn.
SHORES & RUARK: Accused of Not Paying Mexican Workers Proper OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Bojorquez-Moreno, Norberto Sepulveda-Cabrera, Alejandro
Saldana-Cota, Leonardo Verdugo-Santos, and Flavio Sepulveda-
Cabrera v. Shores & Ruark Seafood Company, Inc., Urbanna Seafood
Company, Inc., and Rufus H Ruark, Jr., Case No. 3:14-cv-00670-REP
(E.D. Va., September 30, 2014) is brought to secure and vindicate
the Plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, and
Virginia contract law.
The Plaintiffs are migrant agricultural workers employed by the
Defendants. The Defendants offered the Plaintiffs employment as
seafood processors under the H-2B work visa program, and the
Plaintiffs accepted the offers and traveled from Mexico to
Virginia to work for the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to properly pay
the Plaintiffs minimum wages as required by the FLSA.
Shores & Ruark, and Urbanna are closely held Virginia corporations
that operates and maintains its principal address in Urbanna,
Middlesex County, Virginia. Rufus H. Ruark, Jr. is the president
of Shores & Ruark and an officer of Urbanna. The Defendants
operate and maintain an oyster processing plant that sold its
products to businesses in various states outside of Virginia.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erin Trodden, Esq.
Tim Freilich, Esq.
LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Telephone: (434) 977-0553
Facsimile: (434) 977-0558
E-mail: Erin@justice4all.org
Tim@justice4all.org
- and -
James M. Knoepp, Esq.
Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
1989 College Avenue NE
Atlanta, GA 30317
Telephone: (404) 521-6700
Facsimile: (404) 221-5857
E-mail: Jim.Knoepp@splcenter.org
Eunice.Cho@splcenter.org
SMITH & WOLLENSKY: Waiter Shared Tips With Manager, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that waiting the
best tables and getting time off work requires paying managers at
Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group sometimes hundreds of dollars
per night, a class action claims.
Mario Viggiani, who has worked at the Las Vegas restaurant since
2005, says that every shift he works, he must "pay the 'door' a
portion of his tips" to get "preferential customers, tables or
shifts."
If he needs a day off, Viggiani says, "his manager would ask:
'What's it worth to you?'"
Viggiani claims he was "forced to pay assistant and general
managers" up to "$200 a night in tips on busy nights" and about
$65 per night on average nights.
During a staff meeting, someone asked the general manager how
workers "were supposed to report the tips they were forced to
share with management to the IRS," and the manager replied: "It's
a gray area," according to the complaint.
Viggiani claims he knows workers at the restaurant group's Miami
outlet who also are forced to pay portions of their tips to
managers for preferred shifts and tables and to take time off
work. He estimates more than 100 wait staff are similarly
aggrieved and qualify as members of the class action.
Viggiani claims Smith & Wollensky violates Nevada Revised Statute
608.100, which states: "It is unlawful for any employer to require
an employee to rebate, refund or return any part of the wage,
salary or compensation earned and paid to the employee."
While the action cites Nevada law, Viggiani says the restaurant
group's policy requiring "tipped employees rebate, refund or
return a portion of the tips they earned" is a "company-wide"
policy that "affects all tipped employees at all Smith & Wollensky
locations." He claims the policy is "willful, malicious and in
reckless disregard" of workers' rights.
The lawsuit, filed Sept. 25, seeks class certification,
restitution and punitive damages for wage and employment
violations, plus costs and fees.
Smith & Wollensky opened in New York City in 1977 and claims to be
a "prime spotting place for local celebrities, political figures
and even a few movie stars" and "long has been considered a
premier dining destination," according to the company's website.
The site lists nine outlets, in Las Vegas, Chicago, Miami Beach,
Philadelphia, Houston, Washington, D.C., Columbus and two in
Boston. The original New York City outlet is owned by Fourth Wall
Restaurants.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew L. Rempfer, Esq.
COGBURN LAW OFFICES
2879 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
Henderson, NV, 89052
Telephone: (702) 384-3616
Facsimile: (702) 943-1936
E-mail: alr@cogburnlaw.com
SUBWAY 45847: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yosley Azcuy Rodriguez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Subway 45847, Inc., Isaura Consuegra, and Gladys
Carrillo, Case No. 1:14-cv-23620 (S.D. Fla., September 30, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.
The Defendants own and operate a food and beverage establishment
in Dade County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
JAMIE H. ZIDELL, PA
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
TILLY'S INC: Discovery in "Christiansen" Case in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2014, provided updates on the case Kristin
Christiansen and Shellie Smith, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops, Superior
Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2013-
00139010.
On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging
violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which
prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification
information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card
and recording such information, subject to exceptions. In June
2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike portions of
the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
Plaintiffs have amended the complaint and discovery is in the
early stages. The complaint seeks certification of a class,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The
Company intends to defend this case vigorously.
Tilly's is a fast-growing destination specialty retailer of West
Coast inspired apparel, footwear and accessories.
TILLY'S INC: Denial of Arbitration in "Rebolledo" Case Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2014, provided updates on the case Maria
Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.;
World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-CXC.
On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and
regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things. An
amended complaint was filed on February 28, 2013, to include
enforcement of California's private attorney general act. The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. In
April 2013, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which was denied in May 2013 and affirmed on appeal. The Company
intends to defend this case vigorously.
Tilly's is a fast-growing destination specialty retailer of West
Coast inspired apparel, footwear and accessories.
TILLY'S INC: "Whitten" Case Stayed Pending Case Management Confab
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc., in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 9, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended August 2, 2014, provided updates on the case Karina Whitten,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's
Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case
No, BC 548252.
On June 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action and
representative Private Attorney General Act lawsuit against the
Company alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal
break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition
law, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification,
penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and
costs. The case is currently stayed pending a case management
conference in September 2014. The Company intends to defend the
case vigorously.
Tilly's is a fast-growing destination specialty retailer of West
Coast inspired apparel, footwear and accessories.
TJEM INC: Sued in M.D. Florida Over Illegal Collection of Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Pippin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TJEM, Inc. d/b/a Checkcare d/b/a Checkcare Systems,
Representation a Florida for-profit corporation, and The Checkcare
Group, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 6:14-cv-
01591 (M.D. Fla., September 30, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for improper and illegal use of false, deceptive, and
misleading representations and means to collect consumer debts in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting debt
allegedly owed to another through their franchisees within
Seminole County, Florida, and throughout the State of Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
Gordon Tyler Bannon, Esq.
LEAVENGOOD, NASH, DAUVAL & BOYLE, PA
Suite 100, 3900 First St N
St. Petersburg, FL 33703
Telephone: (727) 327-3328
Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
aswift@leavenlaw.com
tbannon@leavenlaw.com
TRINITY RIVER: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Terras, and Bobby Tyler, as individual California
residents, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Trinity River Lumber Company, a California
corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02277-MCE-CMK (E.D. Cal., September 30, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of failing to pay overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, among other allegations.
Trinity River Lumber Company is a California Corporation doing
business in the County of Trinity, state of California. TRLC is a
lumber mill business that produces timbers for home center
products, and maintains a lumber mill in Weaverville, California,
and has its corporate headquarters in Weaverville, California.
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jose R. Garay, Esq.
JOSE GARAY, APLC
9861 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 208-3400
Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com
TRITON WINDOW: Fails to Pay OT, "Luzardo" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Angel Luzardo, Raunel Manuel Lara Alonso and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Triton Window
Distributors, Inc. and Alejandro Acosta, Case No. 1:14-cv-23622
(S.D. Fla., September 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed
in excess of 40 hours weekly.
Triton Window Distributors, Inc. is an installer of PGT impact-
resistant windows and doors.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie H. Zidell
JAMIE H. ZIDELL, PA
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling TRW
Automotive Holdings too cheaply through an unfair process to ZF
Friedrichshafen AG, for $105.60 a share or $13.5 billion,
shareholders claim in Wayne County Court.
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by ZF
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Laborers Pension Fund, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., ZF
Friedrichshafen AG, ZF North America, Inc., MSNA, Inc., John C.
Plant, James F. Albaugh, Francois J. Castaing, Robert L. Friedman,
Michael R. Gambrell, J. Michael Losh, David W. Meline, Jody G.
Miller, Neil P. Simpkins and David S. Taylor, Case No. 2014-
143032-CB (Mich. Cir. Ct., Oakland Cty., September 19, 2014)
arises from the proposed acquisition of TRW by ZF through an
unfair process and at an unfair price.
The Plaintiff is a stockholder of TRW.
Headquartered in Livonia, Michigan, TRW is among the world's
largest and most diversified suppliers of automotive systems,
modules and components to global automotive original equipment
manufacturers and related aftermarkets. The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG is a foreign corporation organized in
Germany and headquartered in Friedrichshafen, Germany. ZF North
America, Inc., is headquartered in Northville, Michigan and
directly holds MSNA. MSNA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of ZF that was created for the purposes of
effecting the proposed transaction.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Marc L. Newman, Esq.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: mln@millerlawpc.com
epm@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4657
Facsimile: (212) 545-4758
E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
kaufman@whafh.com
brown@whafh.com
- and -
Randall J. Baron, Esq.
A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
Edward M. Gergosian, 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: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
ricka@rgrdlaw.com
DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Albert G. Kroll, Esq.
KROLL HEINEMAN CARTON, LLC.
Metro Corporate Campus I
99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 307
Iselin, NJ 08830
Telephone: (732) 491-2100
Facsimile: (732) 491-2120
E-mail: AKroll@krollfirm.com
TTC LANDSCAPING: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Tulio Gonzalez, on behalf of himself, and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. T.T.C.
Landscaping, Inc., Edward Locke, individually, and Kimberly Locke,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07647 (N.D. Ill., September 30,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation.
T.T.C. Landscaping, Inc. provides landscaping and maintenance
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
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Adams" Wage and Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Adams, Michael Adams, William Bartelt, Andrea Broker, Jaimie
Budzinski, Alfred Crane, James Currier, Nicole Davis, William
Flahive, Angela Gunkel, Jarmar Hardy, Timothy Hollan, Troy Kaun,
Charlotte Kroupa, Juli Millikin, Luke Misiak, Lynette Naumann,
Louis Olinger, Scott Ostrowski, Sarah Pohlman, Marc Schrader,
Richard Stoddard, Chad Tenpas, John Totz, Joseph Valentine, Brad
Wanta, Shaun Whatley, Tonya Williams, Rick Wysocki, Benjamin
Zawislan, Jennifer Zawislan, Thomas Zorzin v. Walgreen Co., d/b/a
Walgreens, Case No. 2:14-cv-01208-JPS (E.D. Wis., September 30,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs were denied overtime wages under
the Defendant's illegal pay policies and practices.
Within the relevant statutory period, the Plaintiffs were employed
as Executive Assistant Managers by Walgreen Co. The Plaintiffs
allege that they were not paid at one and one half times the
regular rate for hours worked over 40 per week.
Each Plaintiff filed a "Consent to Join" in a collective action
that was conditionally certified and then decertified in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,
Kunio Teramura, et al. v. Walgreen Co., 5:12-cv-5244-JLH. The
Teramura Court tolled the Plaintiffs' statute of limitations until
September 30, 2014, allowing the Plaintiffs time to file a new
lawsuit in their own state.
Walgreens is a foreign for-profit corporation registered to
conduct business in the state of Wisconsin. The Defendant is a
national retailer of "pharmacy, health and wellness solutions, and
consumer goods and services," employing over 240,000 people and
operating approximately 8,000 stores across the country.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
PO Box 442
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
ljohnson@hq-law.com
tmaynard@hq-law.com
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Adams, et al. v. Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens, Case No.
4:14-cv-02761 (S.D. Tex., September 26, 2014) is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties
and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of
the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs overtime
compensation for the hours that the Plaintiffs worked off the
clock for each single workweek.
The Plaintiffs are Henry Adams, Worvell Ray Aldridge, Harry Aubrey
Jr., Kelly Begeal, Cassandra Bleakley, Blaine Boudreaux, Shana
Boutte, Luke Bui, Claudia Church, Ricky Corona, Jennifer Cuellar,
Jeffrey Cullen, Cora Davis, Lynette Drake, Brandon Drake, Parrish
Ford, Haidy Ghali, Debra Gibbs, Timothy Gollihar, Joemo Graham,
Chester Gray, Kyle Greene, John Haduch, Ryan Hall, Bradley
Hilburn, Minerva Hill, Shirley Hogue, Marzel Hurbs, Steven Huynh,
Monsur Idowu, Terri Iley, Natasha James, Christina Jones, Kelli
Jones, Matthew Kaminski, Anthony Drew Kennard, Stephen Kowalski,
Carla Kuykendall, Amy Lejeune, James Little, Brandon Long, Justin
Lovings, Larry Mabry, Matthew Manis, Jeffrey Manning, Elizabeth
Marquez, James Mcdonald, Vernal Lee Mcminn, Robert Meservey, Edgar
Montoya, Kanya Nhek, Judylynn Nooyen, Jeffrey Patterson, Gregg
Perek, Vince Polk, Bettie Powell, Jessica Renee Ramirez, Patrick
Respondek, Miguel Reyes Jr., Graciela Reyna, Manuel Roberts, Fred
Rolke Iii, Brisa Ruiz, Sergio Serna, Lance Shaw Jr., Danielle
Shepic (Cheek), Ali Shokraneh, Leticia Sierras, Tracie Silcott,
Troy Sims, Christopher Susen, Liz Sutterfield, Jermaine Thomas,
Louis Thomas, Marc Andrew Thompson, Jake Tousey, Nicky Treadway,
Paschal Udemgba, Keri Valentine, Diane Weirich, Akiko Westberg,
Sakeema Williams, Richard Williams, Fredarick Wilson and Maria
Woods.
The Plaintiffs are individuals, who worked for the Defendant as
Executive Assistant Managers in Texas.
Walgreens is a foreign for-profit corporation registered to
conduct business in the state of Texas. The Company is a national
retailer of "pharmacy, health and wellness solutions, and consumer
goods and services," employing over 240,000 people and operating
approximately 8,000 stores across the country.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bennett, John Herrera, Scott Kendall, April Kott, Dory
McAlister, Sally Moore, Fatina Nazzal on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Arizona Drug Co. and
Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens, Case No. 2:14-cv-02169 (D. Ariz.,
September 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendants operate retail stores that sell merchandise in
consumer goods categories such as pharmacy, health and hygiene,
beauty and cosmetics, grocery, vitamins and supplements.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Lee Bonnett, Esq.
Ravi Vasishta Patel, Esq.
MARTIN & BONNETT PLLC
1850 N Central Ave., Ste. 2010
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 240-6900
Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
rpatel@martinbonnett.com
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Henry v. Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens, Case No. 1:14-cv-07624
(N.D. Ill., September 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Walgreen Co. operates retail stores that sell merchandise in
consumer goods categories such as pharmacy, health and hygiene,
beauty and cosmetics, grocery, vitamins and supplements.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
sarendt@flsalaw.com
zflowerree@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Moran" Suit in R.I. Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Moran, Jeffrey Bourget, Peter Bowman, and Zachary
Forsberg-Lary v. Walgreen Co. and Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc.,
d/b/a Walgreens, Case No. 1:14-cv-00429-ML-LDA (D.R.I.,
September 30, 2014) for declaratory judgment and damages as a
result of the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs'
(a) overtime compensation for the hours that they worked over 40
for each single workweek, and (b) premium pay for hours that they
worked on Sundays and holidays for their work as Executive
Assistant Managers in Rhode Island.
Walgreen Co., doing business as Walgreens, is an Illinois
corporation, with its primary headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois.
Walgreen Eastern Co. Inc., doing business as Walgreens, is a New
York corporation, with its primary headquarters in Deerfield,
Illinois. Walgreen Sub is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Walgreen
Co. The Defendants operate retail stores that sell merchandise in
consumer goods categories, including pharmacy, health and hygiene,
beauty and cosmetics, grocery, vitamins and supplements, and other
consumer goods categories.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chip Muller, Esq.
Nancy Sheinberg, Esq.
MULLER LAW, LLC
155 South Main Street, Suite 101
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 256-5171
Facsimile: (401) 256-5178
E-mail: chip@chipmuller.com
nancy@sheinberg.org
WHOLE FOODS: Four Suits Consolidated in Greek Yogurt MDL in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tracey Knox, Sarah McDonagh, Derek Guluba, and Barbara
Trevino sought and obtained acceptance from the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and
centralize the four federal actions to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The actions are:
(1) Knox, et al. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-13185-RGS, pending in the District of
Massachusetts;
(2) Markley v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:14-cv-01892-CEH-MAP, pending in the Middle
District of Florida;
(3) Jackson, et al. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-06705-R-VBK, pending in the Central
District of California; and
(4) Grodnick, et al. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07035-ALC, pending in the Southern
District of New York.
The consolidated litigation is captioned IN RE: Whole Foods
Market, Inc., Greek Yogurt Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2588.
There are three additional actions recently filed in state courts,
which the Defendants have stated they will remove to their
respective federal jurisdictions:
(1) Clemente, et al. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 140801271, pending in the Pennsylvania Court
of Common Pleas for the County of Philadelphia (within the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania);
(2) Bilder v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. BUR-L-1904-14, pending in the New Jersey Superior
Court for the County of Burlington (within the District of
New Jersey); and
(3) Rodhouse v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.,
Case No. 1422-CC09626, pending in the Missouri Circuit
Court, City of St. Louis (within the Eastern District of
Missouri).
The actions involve common questions of fact that are sufficiently
numerous and complex to warrant centralization. All of the cases
are premised on similar factual allegations involving the sugar
content of Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek Yogurt,
which Defendants Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. and WFM Private
Label, L.P. advertise and market as containing less sugar per
serving than the Product actually does contain. The actions
involve similar class definitions (though they vary by state) and
bring many of the same causes of action.
Plaintiffs Tracey Knox, Sarah McDonagh, Derek Guluba, and Barbara
are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
1016 Palm Avenue
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
507 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
Bethesda, MD 20814
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
MIRABELLA LAW
132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 580-8270
Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
E-mail: erica@mirabellaLLC.com
- and -
Jon Herskowitz, Esq.
BARON & HERSKOWITZ
9100 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 670-0101
Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com
- and -
Joseph Siprut, Esq.
SIPRUT PC
17 North State Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 236-0000
Facsimile: (312) 546-9963
E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
*********
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 * * *