/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141021.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 209 Headlines ACN INC: Faces "Adesina" Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Sales Model AL CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Prisoners Sue Over Violence at St. Clair ALLIANCE ONE: "Riccio" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA AMERICAN GREETINGS: Vacates Motion to Dismiss Cal. Labor Suit ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports BARCLAYS PLC: Settles Libor Class Action for $19.98 Million BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued in Fla. Over Sale of Flintstones Product BRITISH AIRWAYS: Denial of Bid to Compel Doc. Production Upheld CANACCORD GENUITY: Sued in N.H. Over Misleading Financial Reports CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in OT Suit CARPACCIO INC: Removes "Amodei" Suit to Florida District Court CINTAS CORP: Discrimination Claims Remanded to District Court CLS TRANSPORTATION: Calif. Appeals Court Revives Class Action COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Court Tosses Bid to Amend "Botero" Suit COX COMMUNICATIONS: Former Installers File Wage Class Action DR HORTON: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Bawtinhimer" Case Upheld DRAFTKINGS INC: Has Send Unsolicited Text Message, Action Claims ESPN INC: Accused of Disability Discrimination and Retaliation EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action FEDEX GROUND: EEOC Sues Over Discrimination Against Deaf Workers FLASHDANCERS: Settles Strippers' Wage Class Action for $4.3 Mil. FLORIDA: Jury Awards $20.7MM to Homeowners in Citrus Class Action GANDER MOUNTAIN: Removes "Clark" Class Suit to C.D. California GFI GROUP: Being Sold for Too Little to CME Group, Suit Claims GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Third Circuit Sends Paxil Cases to State Court GOVT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE: Ruling in "Harper" Case Vacated GREENWAY HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims GT ADVANCED: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports H & F ATHLETICS: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HARBOR BELT: District Judge Tosses Reconsideration Motion HIGHER ONE: Settles Debit Card Class Action for $15 Million HOME DEPOT: Removes "Burris" Breach-Related Suit to E.D. Kentucky ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk "Silsby v. Icahn" Remains Pending INDEED INC: Court Amends Order Approving "Rosh" Suit Settlement INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in "Wallace" Suit KEY PROGRAM: $430,500 Settlement in Isiaho Case Get Final Okay L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York Court LA BAGUETTE: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Hernandez" Suit Says LONDON SILVER: "Nalven" Class Suit Consolidated in Antitrust MDL LONDON SILVER: Two Antitrust Suits Consolidated in S.D. New York MADNI MART: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NAT'L COLLEGIATE: 10 Ex-Players File Class Action Over Image Use NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued in Illinois Over Defective MaxxForce Engines O'BRIEN AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Wage Theft, Discrimination OEY TRADING: Recalls Monica Snack Products OLSON MEAT: Recalls 160 Lbs. of Pork Blood Product PAB TWO: Recalls Bed Bug Heat Treatment Systems PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Removes "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida POLYCEL STRUCTURAL: Removes MPG Suit to Alabama District Court PPL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Class Suit Says PRICELINE GROUP: Sued Over Illegally Collection of Resort Fees PULLIN LAW: Faces "Moskowitz" Injury Class Suit in New York PURE FOODS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Owed Under FLSA REAL FOODS: Recalls 96 Units of "Mexican Cheddar Dip" Product REJUVENATION INC: Recalls Hanging Lamps Due to Risk of Injury RENOWN REGIONAL: Nev. Sup. Court Rules on Appeal in "Wiley" Suit SAM KANE: Recalls 2,633 Lbs. of Ground Beef Chub Product SAM KANE: Recalls 90,987 Lbs. of Ground Beef Products SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims SUNBURST FOODS: Recalls Fresh Bites and Private Labeled Products SYNTHES (CANADA): Recalls Radiolucent Bone Lever with Double Tip TARGET CORP: Minnesota Judge Blocks Class Action Settlement TOTAL SCREEN: Faces "Galvan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TOYS R US: Recalls Toy Toaster Sets Due to Choking Hazard UNITED STATES: Court Limits "Mandatory" Immigration Detention UNIV. OF TEXAS MEDICAL: Motion to Centralize 7 Actions Junked VIGIL BEEF: Recalls 48 Lbs. of Beef Jerky Products WHOLE FOODS: Bid for Appointment of Co-Lead Class Counsel Denied ZIMMER DENTAL: Recalls Tapered Screw-Vent Implant * Companies With More Independent Contractors Face More Risks ********* ACN INC: Faces "Adesina" Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Sales Model -------------------------------------------------------------- Oladipupo Adesina v. ACN, INC. and Xoom Energy, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00562 (W.D.N.C, October 10, 2014), arises from the Defendants' fraudulent and deceptive bait-and-switch sales model with their variable rate Simpleflex customers. The Defendants represent to potential customers that, if they switch to XOOM from their local utilities or other energy suppliers, they will receive a low introductory rate on their energy bill, followed by competitive market-based rates and savings on their energy bills. However, after the low introductory rate, the Defendants' energy rates increase dramatically, causing XOOM customers' electricity bills to rise. ACN, INC. is a multi-level marketing company that provides, energy through XOOM Energy using a network of independent sales agents. Xoom Energy, LLC is a retail electricity and natural gas provider. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Scott C. Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 Email: scott@wbmllp.com dan@wbmllp.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@wbmllp.com enafisi@wbmllp.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Beatrice Yakubu, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 Email: charles@cuneolaw.com byakubu@cuneolaw.com - and - Richard Greenfield, Esq. GREENFIELD AND GOODMAN LLC 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (917) 495-4446 Email: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net AL CORRECTIONS DEP'T: Prisoners Sue Over Violence at St. Clair -------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Cheatham; Mark Duke; James Edwards; Dale Gilley; Franky Johnson; Michael Mays; Derrick White; Allan Williams and Robert Woods, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Commissioner Kim Thomas; Associate Commissioner James Deloach; Associate Commissioner Terrance McDonnell; Deputy Commissioner Greg Lovelace; Institutional Coordinator Grant Culliver; Warden Carter Davenport; Assistant Warden Eric Evans; Assistant Warden Karen Carter; Captain Carl Sanders; Captain Gary Malone, in their official capacities, Case No. Case No. 4:14-cv-01952-VEH (N.D. Ala., October 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendants have failed to reasonably and adequately respond to the extremely high rate of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and homicides and the dangerous conditions that facilitate the incidents and culture of violence at St. Clair Correctional Facility, in Springville, Alabama. The Plaintiffs are men presently confined in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections at St. Clair, where allegedly mismanagement, poor leadership, overcrowding, inadequate security, and unsafe conditions, including broken and nonfunctioning locks on the majority of cell doors, have lead to an extraordinarily high homicide rate, weekly stabbings and assaults, and a culture where violence is tolerated, creating conditions of confinement that violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Because of poor management, drugs and other contraband -- in many cases contraband that is brought into the Facility and sold to prisoners by officers or DOC staff -- are prevalent, according to the complaint. The complaint adds that correctional staff fails to follow policies and procedures and sometimes ignore urgent pleas for assistance that, then, results in serious violence. Kim Thomas is the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections. James Deloach is the Associate Commissioner for Operations for the Alabama Department of Corrections. Terrance G. McDonnell is the Associate Commissioner for Plans and Programs for the Alabama Department of Corrections. Greg Lovelace is the Deputy Commissioner for Maintenance for the Alabama Department of Corrections. Grant Culliver is the Institutional Coordinator for the Northern Region of the Alabama Department of Corrections. Carter Davenport is the Warden of St. Clair Correctional Facility in Springville, Alabama. Karen Carter is an Assistant Warden of St. Clair. Eric Evans is an Assistant Warden of St. Clair. Carl Sanders is a Captain at St. Clair. Gary Malone is a Captain at St. Clair. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan A. Stevenson, Esq. Charlotte R. Morrison, Esq. Jennae R. Swiergula, Esq. Carla C. Crowder, Esq. Ryan C. Becker, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE OF ALABAMA 122 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-1803 Facsimile: (334) 269-1806 E-mail: bstevenson@eji.org cmorrison@eji.org jswiergula@eji.org ccrowder@eji.org rbecker@eji.org ALLIANCE ONE: "Riccio" Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Peter G. Sheridan dismissed in its entirety with prejudice the case captioned MAUREEN RICCIO on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE ONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4445 (PGS), (D. N.J.). The Complaint sought to certify a class of all New Jersey residents who have been subject to violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act by Defendant Alliance One. Alliance One sought dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A copy of Judge Sheridan's October 9, 2014 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/qCOG3ofrom Leagle.com. ALLIANCE ONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, represented by SCOTT B. TENENBAUM -- Tenenbaum.S@wssllp.com -- WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG LLP. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith D. Madonna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 0:14-cv-04258- PAM-TNL (D. Minn., October 14, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com AMERICAN GREETINGS: Vacates Motion to Dismiss Cal. Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- American Greetings Corporation vacated its Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit filed by former fixture installation crew members for special projects, according to the company's Oct. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 29, 2014. On June 4, 2014, Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, former fixture installation crew members for special projects, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against American Greetings Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation (1) failed to pay overtime wages and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders ("California Law"); (2) failed to make payments within the required time in violation of California Law; (3) failed to provide properly itemized wage statements in violation of the California law; and (4) engaged in unfair competition in violation of California's Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs claim to represent a class of all persons who, at any time since June 4, 2010, were employed by the Corporation in California as non-exempt employees and certify subclasses therein with respect to the California Law violations detailed above. In addition, plaintiffs claim to assert a nationwide collective action under the FLSA. For themselves and the proposed classes, plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of general and special damages, including but not limited to minimum wages, agreed upon wages and overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, statutory penalties (including penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), unpaid benefits, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest. In addition, plaintiffs request disgorgement of all funds the Corporation acquired by means of any act or practice that constitutes unfair competition and restoration of such funds to the plaintiffs and the proposed classes. The Corporation was served with the Complaint on July 16, 2014 and on July 31, 2014, the Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss. On August 3, 2014, prior to the Court ruling on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. The Corporation vacated its Motion to Dismiss and filed its answer to the First Amended Complaint on August 21, 2014. ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Zhongmin Wang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arrowhead Research Corporation, Christopher R. Anzalone, and Bruce D. Given, Case No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., October 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the Company's financial condition. Arrowhead Research Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company whose main business is developing RNA Interference therapeutics. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BARCLAYS PLC: Settles Libor Class Action for $19.98 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Barclays Plc has agreed to pay nearly $20 million to resolve a U.S. class action lawsuit accusing the British bank of manipulating the Libor benchmark interest rate, according to court papers filed on Oct. 8. The proposed deal, disclosed in court papers filed in federal court in New York, is the first such settlement of private litigation in the United States against various banks accused of manipulating the London interbank offered rate. The deal, which must be approved by a federal judge, follows earlier agreements by Barclays in 2012 to pay $453 million to settle investigations by U.S. and British authorities related to Libor. As part of the $19.98 million settlement, on behalf of futures contract traders, Barclays has agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs, who hope documents and information the bank provides will aid in resolving claims against other banks. Christopher Lovell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the deal "is a good ice breaker settlement for the class and will provide helpful cooperation in continuing to prosecute the claims against the remaining defendants." Kerrie Cohen, spokeswoman for Barclays, said in a statement that the bank was "pleased to have reached an agreement to settle in this matter -- it is a step forward in resolving another legacy issue." Libor, which is calculated based on submissions from a panel of banks, underpins hundreds of trillions of dollars of transactions and is used to set interest rates on credit cards, student loans and mortgages. U.S. and British authorities have charged several individuals and extracted billions of dollars in fines from banks stemming from alleged manipulation of Libor and in related rates. Barclays class-action settlement covers anyone who transacted in Libor-based Eurodollar futures contracts or options on exchanges such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange between Jan. 1, 2005, and May 31, 2010. It stems from a series of lawsuits filed beginning in 2011 and consolidated before U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. Other banks that have faced private lawsuits before Judge Buchwald over Libor include Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup Inc and Credit Suisse Group AG, among others. Judge Buchwald gave the banks a significant win in March 2013 when she dismissed a "substantial portion" of claims facing them. Judge Buchwald at that time denied a motion to dismiss commodity manipulation claims on Eurodollar futures and options during two periods, though in June 2014 she tossed claims arising one of those periods, from May 2008 to April 2009. The cases are In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 11-md-2262. BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued in Fla. Over Sale of Flintstones Product --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Kaplan, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 23789-RNS (S.D. Fla., October 14, 2014) is brought on behalf of a Florida class defined as all consumers in Florida, who purchased Flintstones Healthy Brain Support. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices relating to the marketing and sale of the Flintstones Healthy Brain Support, which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to consumers. Bayer Healthcare, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Whippany, New Jersey. The Defendant manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold the Product and created the deceptive brain function representations, which it caused to be disseminated to consumers throughout the United States, including Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lance A. Harke, Esq. Sarah Clasby Engel, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: (305) 536-8220 Facsimile: (305) 536-8229 E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com sengel@harkeclasby.com hbushman@harkeclasby.com - and - Elaine A. Ryan, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. Lindsey Gomez-Gray, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Road, #300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 E-mail: eryan@bffb.com psyverson@bffb.com Lgomez-gray@bffb.com BRITISH AIRWAYS: Denial of Bid to Compel Doc. Production Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in RUSSEL DOVER, JONATHAN STONE, CODY RANK, and SUZETTE PERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRITISH AIRWAYS, PLC (UK), Defendant, NO. 12 CV 5567 (RJD) (MDG), (E.D. N.Y.) allege that fuel surcharges assessed by British Airways on rewards flights were not actually based on the cost of fuel, and therefore violated the terms and conditions of its frequent flyers program. Plaintiffs supported their claim with a statistical study -- referred to as an "r-squared analysis" -- which they alleged shows that the fuel surcharges bore little relationship to changes in the price of fuel. On December 20, 2013, British Airways served a request for all documents relating to the r-squared analysis. Plaintiffs have indicated that they do not "intend to use the r-squared analysis moving forward" or "at all" as plaintiffs will base their case on their testifying experts' analyses of British Airways' data. British Airways moved to compel these documents on June 25, 2014. On August 15, 2014, Magistrate Judge Go denied British Airways' motion, and British Airways appealed. In a Memorandum and Order entered October 9, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/mNbUybfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Raymond J. Dearie affirmed Magistrate Judge Go's decision. British Airways, PLC (UK), Defendant, represented by Richard Francis Hans -- richard.hans@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Colleen Michelle Carey -- colleen.carey@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, David Victor Sack -- david.sack@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Edwin R. Cortes -- edwin.cortes@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Keara M. Gordon -- keara.gordon@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper & Timothy H. Birnbaum -- timothy.birnbaum@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP. CANACCORD GENUITY: Sued in N.H. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Cornwell, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Richard J. Gaynor, Raja Bal, J. Michael Conaway, Kathleen A. Cote, Ernest L. Godshalk, Matthew E. Massengill, Mary Petrovich, Robert E. Switz, Noel G. Watson, Thomas Wroe, Jr., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Canaccord Genuity Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00448 (D.N.H., October 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in its Debt Offering and Equity Offering. Canaccord Genuity Inc. is a leading manufacturer of materials for consumer electronics. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Canaccord Genuity Inc. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Goldman, Sachs & Co. are underwriters of the Offerings made by the Canaccord Genuity Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Biron L. Bedard, Esq. RANSMEIER & SPELLMAN One Capitol St, PO Box 600 Concord, NH 03302-0600 Telephone: (603) 228-0477 E-mail: bbedard@ranspell.com - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BERBARD M. GROSS, PC The Wanamaker Building, Suite 450, 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 561-3600 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in OT Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that when job descriptions of a proposed class action overtime case are variable, they don't have common issues, confirms the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce the Court of Appeal denied certifying yet another "misclassification" class action claiming overtime pay. But that doesn't mean the Court of Appeal has closed the door on these kinds of overtime class actions, says Laura Fric -- lfric@osler.com -- a litigation partner with Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP. "What matters is the facts of each case," says Ms. Fric. "The Court was clear that 'misclassification' overtime claims are not all doomed to fail as a class action, just as 'off-the-clock' overtime class actions are not guaranteed to be certified." Jonathan Ptak -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- partner with the class action group at Koskie Minsky LLP represented the plaintiffs. He says his clients are still considering seeking leave to the Supreme Court. "Certainly I'm disappointed by the Court's decision and the analysis for this case. We believe it is a case that ought to be certified," says Mr. Ptak, noting the judge's decision "certainly leaves the door open for other cases under the right circumstances." Mr. Ptak notes there is another class action involving misclassified investment advisors that has been certified -- Rosen v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. At the certification motion, the plaintiffs in Brown had proposed a class definition consisting of employees who had worked for CIBC after 1996 and held the job titles of analyst, investment advisor, or associate investment advisor. The motion judge concluded that eligibility for overtime pay under the applicable statutory regime or CIBC's overtime policy could not be determined on a common basis for all members of the proposed class. He further held that, absent a common issue on the question of eligibility for overtime pay, the claim should not be certified under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6. The Divisional Court also refused to certify the action. The definition of the proposed class changed over the course of the proceedings. The description of the proposed class, first put forward in the Divisional Court and relied on in the Appeal Court was as follows: All Ontario current and former CIBC and CIBC World Market employees, since 1996, who were classified by CIBC or CIBCWM as level 6 or higher, who held the title "investment advisor" (otherwise known as financial advisor) or "associate investment advisor," exclusive of any time period for which they: (a) held the position of branch manager; or (b) held the position of assistant branch manager; or, (c) had deductions taken from earned commissions which were attributed to an associate investment advisor who was assigned to him/her. The Divisional Court held that despite the considerable narrowing of the proposed class, the determination of eligibility for overtime pay remained an employee-specific inquiry that was not amenable to resolution as a common issue. The court placed considerable reliance on the analysis in McCracken v. Canadian National Railway Company. The Divisional Court also agreed with the motion judge that none of the other proposed common issues rendered the claims suitable for certification. In the Court of Appeal, the plaintiffs argued, first, that the courts below erred in holding that eligibility for overtime pay was not a common issue. They submitted that both the motion judge and the Divisional Court "fundamentally misapprehended the relevant evidence and failed to apply the legal principles governing the common issue assessment required by s. 5(1)(c) of the CPA." Second, the appellants submitted that even if eligibility for overtime pay was not a common issue, there were other common issues that warranted certification of the action. Justice David Doherty in his decision said: "Like the courts below, I think the outcome of the certification motion turned on s. 5(1)(c) of the CPA and, specifically, whether eligibility for overtime pay could be certified as a common issue." "The Court cares about whether there is a common question it can efficiently and fairly decide," says Mr. Fric. "If there is not one, then no one is done any favors by having the claim go forward." Mr. Fric also points out that CIBC's own written overtime policy, which referred to job titles, was a guideline; ultimate eligibility for overtime pay was determined based on the individual investment advisor's duties and responsibilities. It often matters what the employees do, she adds, not what they are called. "While an employer might organize their employees by job title and/or level for some purposes, the Court's analysis won't stop with looking at superficially similar job titles or levels. The Court will look at what the responsibilities and duties the employees actually perform." For employers, Mr. Fric says one takeaway from the decision would be to address individual circumstances when determining whether people are eligible for overtime pay or not. CARPACCIO INC: Removes "Amodei" Suit to Florida District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Amodei v. Carpaccio Inc., et al., Case No. 14-21897 CA 01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv- 23767-JLK to the proceeding. The action is brought to recover from the employer a claim for unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edilberto O. Marban, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN 1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 902 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-9292 Facsimile: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie Pidermann, Esq. Katie Gudaitis, Esq. LYDECKER DIAZ 1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 416-3180 Facsimile: (305) 416-3190 E-mail: sp@lydeckerdiaz.com kg@lydeckerdiaz.com CINTAS CORP: Discrimination Claims Remanded to District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling against Cintas Corporation that effectively remanded hiring discrimination claims against it back to the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, according to the company's Oct. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2014. Cintas is party to additional litigation not considered in the ordinary course of business, including the litigation discussed below. Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into various service sales representative positions across all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan. Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano lawsuit. In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC appealed the District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back to the District Court. On April 16, 2013, Cintas filed with the United States Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari seeking to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 7, 2013, the Court denied Cintas' Petition, thus remanding the claims back to the District Court consistent with the Sixth Circuit Court's November 9, 2012 decision. CLS TRANSPORTATION: Calif. Appeals Court Revives Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Greene, Erin Coe and Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that a California appellate court has reversed course on its decision to force an apartment complex manager's Private Attorney General Act class action claims against her employer into arbitration, saying the state high court's ruling in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC meant the claims could stay in court. Citing the California Supreme Court's conclusions in Iskanian, the appeals court said on Oct. 7 that it was bound to find that a PAGA waiver in Apartment Investment and Management Co.'s arbitration agreement is unenforceable by law, according to the decision. The ruling is a turnaround from an earlier reversal of a trial court's refusal to compel arbitration, according to court records. The plaintiff, Reyne Marie Ybarra, was seeking a claim under the PAGA, which covers a wide array of labor issues involving time, pay and working conditions, according to court records. But she wasn't bringing the claims on an individual basis, prompting the appeals court to cleave to the Iskanian exception for PAGA claims, according to the decision. "The dispute here involves the legal question of whether the parties' arbitration agreement -- specifically, its prohibition of representative claims -- is enforceable," the panel wrote in the Oct. 7 ruling. "Iskanian has now answered this question, and the answer is no." Ybarra worked for Aimco from January to December in 2011. She'd signed an agreement to take any disputes with her employer to arbitration, according to court records. In March 2012, she filed a complaint in state court against Aimco, alleging a class claim for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, a PAGA claim, and a claim under the businesses and professions code, according to filings. Aimco tried twice to have the suit removed to federal court, and Ybarra voluntarily dismissed all but the PAGA claim, according to the appeals court. Aimco then filed a motion to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied it, finding that Ms. Ybarra had demonstrated some procedural unconscionability because the arbitration agreement was presented as a condition of employment, and substantive unconscionability because the PAGA representative action waiver was unenforceable, court records show. The appellate court initially reversed that decision, but, in light of Iskanian, now affirms, the panel wrote on Oct. 7. The June Iskanian ruling strengthened the enforceability of class waivers in arbitration agreements in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, but carved out an exception for PAGA claims. Limo driver Arshavir Iskanian filed a putative class action against CLS Transportation in August 2006. But because Iskanian had signed an arbitration agreement containing a class waiver, the trial court sent his individual claims to arbitration, and California's Second Appellate District affirmed the decision in 2012. The intermediate appeals court found Concepcion essentially overruled the California high court's Gentry decision, which had regularly led to the invalidation of class waivers. The court applied Concepcion broadly, also ruling that the right to bring representative actions under the state's PAGA can be waived. The case was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which went on to remand the matter for proceedings. In an opinion written by Justice Goodwin Liu, the majority said that an employment agreement that compelled the waiver of representative PAGA claims was counter to public policy and unenforceable. On Sept. 22, CLS urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review the California high court's landmark Iskanian ruling, saying the state high court's decision failed to fully implement the precedent set by Concepcion. Ms. Ybarra is represented by Jill Parker and Edwin Aiwazian of Lawyers for Justice PC, Kevin Isaac Shenkman -- kshenkman@shenkmanhughes.com -- of Shenkman & Hughes, and Petros Gezoukian. Aimco is represented by John M. Husband and Christina Gomez of Holland & Hart LLP and Julie Rae Trotter -- jtrotter@calljensen.com -- of Call & Jensen. The case is Reyna Marie Ybarra v. Apartment and Investment Management Co., case number B245901, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District. COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Court Tosses Bid to Amend "Botero" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton denied a motion to amend the complaint captioned JAIME BOTERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE SERVICE INC. and DAWSON A. RUTTER, JR., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10428-NMG, (D. Mass.). This is a putative class action brought by a former chauffeur, Jaime Botero, who claims that defendant Commonwealth Limousine Service and its president, Dawson A. Rutter violated the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act through their failure to compensate chauffeurs properly. The Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to implead as plaintiffs 14 individuals who filed "opt-in" notices under the FLSA. "[P]laintiff will not be permitted to amend their complaint to add the Section 216(b) "opt-in" individuals as named plaintiffs. To the extent those individuals wish to raise their claims against Commonwealth, they must file separate complaints," ruled Judge Gorton in his October 8, 2014 memorandum & order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/R59tskfrom Leagle.com. Jaime Botero, Counter Defendant, represented by Kristen M. Hurley -- khurley@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law Group & Philip J. Gordon -- pgordon@gordonllp.com -- Gordon Law Group. COX COMMUNICATIONS: Former Installers File Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Blanchette, writing for abc6, reports that five former local service installers are suing Cox Communications and M & M Communications for failure to pay wages an unfair labor practices. Surrounded by members of local workers unions attorney, Richard Sinapi announced the suit at the Rhode Island State House. Mr. Sinapi says the workers were told to work extra hours without recording overtime and were paid as independent contractors while being taxed as regular employees. "If you had a choice between feeding your family and not what would you choose?" Mr. Sinapi said, "You would choose to feed your family, suck up the exploitation because at least you are making a paycheck." A similar suit was brought against Cox and M & M in Connecticut in 2008 and was settled out of court. The plaintiffs are asking for back pay, damages and attorney fees. "You could call this lawsuit 'The Middle Class Fights Back' because it seeks to strike a blow against unlawful employment practices that have been diminishing the wages of workers for years, and have become widespread since the Great Recession." "Employers who cheat workers of their hard earned wages not only harm the workers and their families, but also deprive the state of payroll and income taxes as well as sales tax revenues due to the diminished purchasing power of middle class families," said Mr. Sinapi. DR HORTON: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Bawtinhimer" Case Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bawtinhimer and Geoffrey Fortunato appealed a trial court order denying class certification of their eight-claim action against D.R. Horton, Inc. and DHI Mortgage Co., Ltd. The trial court's order denied class certification on all eight claims in a single-page analysis, which explained that Appellants' demand for rescission of all contracts between Appellees and putative class members rendered the action inappropriate for class litigation. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District affirmed the ruling in an opinion dated October 10, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/xstuLjfrom Leagle.com. The case is JONATHAN BAWTINHIMER and GEOFFREY FORTUNATO, Appellants, v. D.R. HORTON, INC., and DHI MORTGAGE CO., LTD, etc. Appellees, CASE NO. 5D13-2580. Abigail Lewis-Fishkin of Silver & Garvett, P.A., Miami, for third- party Appellee, John A. Siegel. DRAFTKINGS INC: Has Send Unsolicited Text Message, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Izsak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Draftkings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-07952 (N.D. Ill., October 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for sending unsolicited text messages to the wireless telephones of the Plaintiff and each of the members of the Class without prior express written consent1 in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Draftkings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Ismael T. Salam, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 241-1260 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com isalam@siprut.com ESPN INC: Accused of Disability Discrimination and Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- Haylee Ross v. ESPN, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01505-RNC (D. Conn., October 14, 2014) alleges disability discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination of employment in violation of the laws of the state of Connecticut. ESPN, Inc., is a Connecticut corporation with a principle place of business in Bristol, Connecticut. ESPN is a U.S. based global provider of comprehensive sports coverage through cable, satellite television and Internet. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Maria DeMatteis, Esq. CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Telephone: (860) 296-3457 Facsimile: (860) 296-0676 E-mail: adematteis@cicchielloesq.com EVERYWARE GLOBAL: Scott+Scott LLP Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed on October 7, 2014, a class action complaint against EveryWare Global, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The complaint was filed on behalf of those persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired EveryWare securities between June 18, 2013 and May 16, 2014 and seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Investors who purchased EveryWare securities during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action must move the Court no later than December 8, 2014. Members of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain absent class members in the lawsuit. The securities class action charges that, throughout the Class Period, EveryWare made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about EveryWare's business, operations, and prospects. The complaint alleges that when this adverse information became known, the Company's share prices declined significantly. If you wish to view the complaint, discuss the EveryWare litigation, or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Michael Burnett of Scott+Scott at mburnett@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, or (860) 537-5537, or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide. FEDEX GROUND: EEOC Sues Over Discrimination Against Deaf Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Trottman and Laura Stevens, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against FedEx Ground Package System Inc., accusing the shipping company of discriminating against a large class of deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers and job applicants for years. The agency, which filed the lawsuit Sept. 30 but disclosed it on Oct. 10, alleges that the company, which is part of FedEx Corp. of Memphis, Tenn., marginalized the workers and hindered their job performance by failing to provide them with needed accommodations such as sign language interpretation and equipment. The EEOC said the company has long been aware that it gets applications from, and has employed, a significant number of hard- of-hearing and deaf people. The EEOC alleges the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to provide disabled applicants and employees with reasonable accommodations unless the employer can show that to do so would be an undue hardship. The lawsuit stems from 19 charges the EEOC received about the company throughout the country, which the agency consolidated and investigated. The EEOC said it filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland after trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement, but FedEx Ground said the EEOC was unwilling to try to resolve the charges through discussions. FedEx Ground denies it violated the law and said it works with deaf and hard-of-hearing employees "to provide individualized and reasonable accommodations." "We are confident that we have complied with the law and intend to vigorously contest the EEOC's unfounded allegations," the company said in a statement. The EEOC alleges that during orientation for new hires and during mandatory initial tours of its facilities, FedEx Ground didn't provide American Sign Language interpretation and closed-captioned training videos. That failure extended to staff and safety meetings, the agency said. The company also "refused" to provide equipment substitutions and modifications, such as scanners that vibrate instead of beep, the EEOC says. One of the EEOC's top priorities under the current administration is to eliminate barriers in recruitment and hiring, including for disabled workers. But the agency has drawn some criticism. Republican lawmakers said earlier this year that the EEOC has overreached in its enforcement and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it has prioritized punishing and suing employers over educating and cooperating with them. The suit against FedEx is the latest in a string of legal setbacks dogging the company in recent months. In July, it was indicted on a charge of transporting illegal prescription drugs. The company has pleaded not guilty. FLASHDANCERS: Settles Strippers' Wage Class Action for $4.3 Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that the owners of three Manhattan strip clubs have agreed to pay a whopping $4.3 million settlement to former strippers who brought a class-action lawsuit saying they were denied fair wages. Flashdancers, Private Eyes and New York Dolls all signed off on the agreement submitted to Manhattan Federal Judge Ronald Ellis on Oct. 6 that attorneys estimate will affect 267 strippers who worked between 2007 and this year. The suit, brought by former dancers Melody Flynn and Martina Antoinette de Truff, charged that the dancers were improperly classified as independent contractors -- though their behavior was micromanaged through strict rules like not chewing gum and buying club-approved "uniforms" from the joints. Dancers were required "to share their tips with workers who do not provide customer service, such as 'house moms,' DJs and private room hostesses," court papers said. An attorney for the owners of the jiggle joints did not respond to a request for comment. Attempts to reach the dancers who brought the suit were unsuccessful. FLORIDA: Jury Awards $20.7MM to Homeowners in Citrus Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that a jury has awarded homeowners in Orange County $20.7 million in a class action lawsuit over destruction of healthy citrus trees under the state's citrus canker eradication program. The Florida Department of Agriculture destroyed more than 60,000 citrus trees at 18,280 Orange County homes between July 2002 and January 2006. Later, a court finding held the state liable for the program and ordered it to pay full compensation. Late on Oct. 6, a 12-person jury decided the average value of the local trees was $344.16. The state had argued that the trees were worth significantly less. The jury also decided that the Department of Agriculture is not entitled to a credit for WalMart gift cards that were issued and used by some of the affected Orange County homeowners. Orange County Circuit Judge Patricia Doherty presided over the compensation case. Lead counsel representing homeowners was Robert C. Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert said the state acknowledged that the state destroyed the trees "in an effort to protect Florida's commercial citrus industry." But he said the state tried to deny thousands of Florida homeowners full compensation for their private property. The Orange County case was only one of many cases decided throughout the state. The state has appealed some of the judgments. GANDER MOUNTAIN: Removes "Clark" Class Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Clark v. Gander Mountain Company, Case No. BC556421, was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-07945 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Brenda Clark alleges that in March 2014, while in California and using a "wireless" telephone, she placed a call to Gander Mountain. She contends that Gander Mountain violated the California Penal Code by recording the alleged call without advising her that it would be recorded. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com dreid@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com The Defendant is represented by: Helen B. Kim, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-2500 Facsimile: (310) 282-2501 E-mail: hkim@thompsoncoburn.com GFI GROUP: Being Sold for Too Little to CME Group, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Szarek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GFI Group Inc., Colin Heffron, Michael Gooch, Marisa Cassoni, Frank Fanzilli, Jr., Richard Magee, CME Group Inc., Commodore Acquisition Corp., and Commodore Acquisition LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08228 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014) is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of GFI Group against its Board of Directors for their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to merge the Company with CME Group for an unfair price, and as a result of an unfair process. GFI Group is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. The Company provides brokerage and trade execution services, clearing services, market data and trading platform and other software products to institutional customers in markets for a range of fixed income, financial, equity and commodity instruments. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. CME Group is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. CME Group, through its futures exchanges and clearing houses, serves the risk management and investment needs of customers around the globe. Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 are Delaware corporations, wholly owned by CME Group that were created for the purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP Donald J. Enright 1101 30th St., NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Third Circuit Sends Paxil Cases to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that cases alleging that GlaxoSmithKline's antidepressant drug Paxil caused birth defects that have been in limbo between state and federal court are to be heard in state court, the Third Circuit has ruled. Last year, the appeals court settled a split among district courts when it ruled that GSK is a corporate citizen of Delaware, not Pennsylvania, which effectively preserved GSK's ability to remove to federal court cases filed against it in Pennsylvania state courts based on diversity jurisdiction. That ruling left a narrow swath of cases -- those that had fallen on the Pennsylvania side of the original split and had been removed from the state court in which they were initially filed to federal court, then remanded back to state court when the district judge held that GSK was a Pennsylvania company -- in limbo between the two venues when GSK sought to have them removed a second time to federal court in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's ruling that GSK is, indeed, a Delaware company last year in Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham. Following that decision, issued in June 2013, district court judges began splitting on the question of whether a second removal based on Johnson was permissible. In December, two district court judges certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether a defendant can remove a case based on diversity jurisdiction for a second time after more than a year has passed since the original filing. The Third Circuit took up the appeal the following month, heard arguments Sept. 10, and issued its opinion just short of a month later. "If a party in a pending case could re-remove each time it received a favorable ruling in another case, re-removal could be a means to disrupt the proceedings in the pending case," Judge Patty Shwartz wrote in her opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel. She was joined by Judge D. Brooks Smith and Senior Judge Jane Richards Roth. The rule governing removal, Section 1446(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, has two paragraphs: the first sets a 30-day deadline to file for removal after the defendant has been served and the second allows for removal for up to a year after the initial filing if there is an intervening order that makes the case removable when it hadn't been initially. GSK had argued the first paragraph wouldn't bar its second attempt at removal because it doesn't include a time limit on successive removals. "Although paragraph one does not expressly forbid successive removals, it does expressly forbid untimely removals," Judge Shwartz said. "Here, the relevant notice of removal was untimely: It was filed over a year-and-a-half after GSK was served with the initial pleading, namely the state court complaint," she said, referring to the original filing in the fall of 2011 and the second removal filed after Johnson in the middle of 2013. "Because GSK's second removal occurred more than 30 days after its receipt of the initial pleading, it did not comply with the first paragraph and GSK cannot remove on that basis," Judge Shwartz said. Regarding the second paragraph, the appeals court held that its decision in Johnson doesn't qualify as an intervening order. As GSK pointed out, Judge Shwartz said, "Our court has recognized a narrow exception to the general rule that orders issued in other cases do not qualify as a Section 1446(b) 'order,'" referring to the Third Circuit's decision in Doe v. American Red Cross, where "the Red Cross removed a case on the ground that its congressional charter conferred federal question jurisdiction. The district court disagreed and remanded the case. Next, the Supreme Court decided S.G. v. American National Red Cross, which held that the Red Cross's charter conferred federal question jurisdiction and gave the 'specific and unequivocal direction that the Red Cross [was] "thereby authorized to removal from state to federal court of any state-law action it is defending."'" The Red Cross then re-removed its case within 30 days of the issuance of S.G., the plaintiffs moved for remand arguing that S.G. wouldn't qualify as an order, and the court held that it would count as an order. "But it included an important qualification," Judge Shwartz said. "To qualify as an 'order' under Section 1446(b), a court decision in another case 'must be sufficiently related to a pending case.'" A given decision must meet several criteria in order to be considered "sufficiently related," according to the opinion. "Johnson is no S.G.," Judge Shwartz said. "Johnson rejected the reasoning that led to the remand of this case, as it held that GSK is a Delaware citizen, but it did not include the explicit authorization to remove other pending cases." There are nine cases, including this one, that have been in limbo between state and federal courts. The Third Circuit's opinion "tracked our briefing, pretty much, to a T," said Adam Peavy -- apeavy@bpblaw.com -- of Bailey Peavy Bailey in Houston. Mr. Peavy is representing the plaintiffs in their trial court actions. "We think they got it right," he said. Howard Bashman, who handled the appeal for the plaintiffs, also said he was "pleased" with the opinion, especially since the court ruled so promptly. "GSK is disappointed in the court's decision but this decision potentially impacts only a very small number of cases. GSK will continue to vigorously defend these cases in whichever court they are litigated," said Robert Perry, spokesman for GSK, in a prepared statement. Asked if the company planned any further appeals, Perry said, "GSK is still analyzing the opinion, and we will weigh our legal options accordingly." Lisa Blatt -- Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., argued on behalf of GSK and couldn't be reached for comment. GOVT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE: Ruling in "Harper" Case Vacated --------------------------------------------------------- In the case CANDACE HARPER, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and LISA HOYT, MARK ANTHONY TURNER, ALLISON M. AKERS, Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, AKA GEICO, Defendant- Appellee, NO. 13-4479-CV, Ms. Harper appealed an award of summary judgment in favor of the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), holding as a matter of law that appellants fall within the administrative exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 213(a). The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in an opinion entered October 10, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/6w65Pqfrom Leagle.com, vacated the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its order. ERIC HEMMENDINGER -- eh@shawe.com -- Shawe & Rosenthal LLP, Baltimore, Maryland (Teresa D. Teare -- teare@shawe.com -- Shawe & Rosenthal LLP, Barry I. Levy -- barry.levy@rivkin.com -- Kenneth A. Novikoff -- ken.novikoff@rivkin.com -- Scott Green -- scott.green@rivkin.com -- Rivkin Radler, LLP, on the brief), for Appellees. GREENWAY HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Physicians Healthsource, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Greenway Health, LLC f/k/a Sage Software Healthcare a/k/a Vitera Healthcare Solutions and John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:14-cv- 02593-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., October 14, 2014) challenges the Defendants' alleged practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Physicians Healthsource, Inc., is an Ohio corporation. Greenway Health, LLC, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida, and was formerly known as Sage Software Healthcare, and is also currently known as Vitera Healthcare Solutions. The identities of the Doe Defendants are not presently known. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 436-0598 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com GT ADVANCED: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Marlene Elizabeth Holland, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Richard J. Gaynor, and Kanwardev Raja Singh Bal, Case No. 1:14-cv-00447 (D.N.H., October 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, and internal controls over financial reporting. GT Advanced Technologies Inc. produces materials and equipment for the solar, light emitting diode, and electronics industries, including sapphire materials which were the subject of the Apple Contract. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of GT Advanced Technologies Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Mallory, Esq. MALLORY & FRIEDMAN, PLLC 3 North Spring Street Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 228-2277 E-mail: mark@mallloryandfriedman.com - and - Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 337-1567 E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com aapton@zlk.com H & F ATHLETICS: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Otilio Rivera and Tomasa Rivera, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. H & F Athletics, Inc. d/b/a Carefree Racquet Club, and George Haber, and Alan Fischl, both in their individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-05953 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants owns and operates an indoor tennis facility in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by:' Jeffrey Douglas, Esq. Borrelli & Associates PLLC 1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: jd@employmentlawyernewyork.com HARBOR BELT: District Judge Tosses Reconsideration Motion --------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Philip P. Simon denied Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company's Motion for Reconsideration in the case BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES DIVISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Plaintiff, v. INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:13 CV 18-PPS- APR (N.D. Ind.), in an Oct. 7, 2014 Opinion and Order available at http://is.gd/h38SEXfrom Leagle.com. Harbor Belt asked Judge Simon to reconsider his ruling partially denying its motion to dismiss. In that ruling, the judge held that Plaintiff Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters had associational standing to pursue injunctive remedies on its claims of racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace against the railroad. Lamont Williams, Movant, is represented: Deidre L. Monroe 201 E 5th Ave, Ste A Gary, IN 46402-1300 Lake County Tel No: (219) 881-9484 HIGHER ONE: Settles Debit Card Class Action for $15 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a final $15 million settlement has been reached in a consolidated class action alleging Higher One engaged in predatory practices in issuing debit cards to college students, often without their permission, and charging exorbitant fees. The financial services company, which is a major player in the college and university market, has also agreed to change business practices that drew criticism from Congress. According to a motion for final settlement approval, filed Oct. 6 in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Higher One will establish a $15 million fund from which a class estimated at 3.7 million Higher One account holders can request relief. The agreement also earmarks about $4.5 million for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses. In Re: Higher One OneAccount Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, which consolidated several proposed class actions in five states, Higher One was alleged to have engaged in deals with colleges and universities through which student financial aid payments were disbursed into debit-card accounts set up by Higher One. The plaintiffs alleged Higher One automatically established the accounts, without obtaining their consent, and deceptively discouraged students from later opting out. The company also allegedly imposed fees substantially higher than banks for such things as using ATMs. Complaints about the company's policies led to a congressional inquiry and an $11 million settlement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for unlawfully charging fees for overdrafts. As part of the settlement, Higher One has agreed to modify its practices, primarily by eliminating fees for such things as delinquent accounts, lack of documentation, insufficient funds and overdraft fees. The company states the termination of the fees will cost the company $66 million in revenue. Higher One also agreed to require students to consent to the fee schedule when opening an account, the settlement memorandum states. Higher One's counsel include attorneys from the firms Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada; Wiggin and Dana; Stites & Harbison; and Beers Anderson Jackson Patty & Fawal. Plaintiffs' attorneys include those from The Simon Law Firm; Tycko & Zavareei; Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah; and The Simon Law Firm. HOME DEPOT: Removes "Burris" Breach-Related Suit to E.D. Kentucky ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Burris v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 14-CI-03409, was removed from the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Commonwealth of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Lexington). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00396-KKC to the proceeding. In the Complaint, Plaintiff Todd Burris purports to seek damages on behalf of an alleged class including "all residents in the State of Kentucky whose credit or debit card information and/or whose personal information was compromised as a result of the Home Depot data breach first announced on September 8, 2014." The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Austin Mehr, Esq. Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq. Erik D. Peterson, Esq. Bartley K. Hagerman, Esq. MEHR FAIRBANKS TRIAL LAWYERS 201 West Short Street, Suite 800 Lexington, Kentucky 40507 Telephone: (859) 225-3731 Facsimile: (859) 225-3830 E-mail: amehr@austinmehr.com pgf@austinmehr.com edp@austinmehr.com bkh@austinmehr.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel E. Danford, Esq. STITES & HARBISON, PLLC 250 West Main Street, Suite 2300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 226-2300 Facsimile: (859) 253-9144 E-mail: ddanford@stites.com ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk "Silsby v. Icahn" Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the securities case Silsby v. Icahn et al. remains pending, according to Icahn Enterprises L.P.'s's Oct. 10, 2014, Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On March 28, 2012, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") and certain of its directors. As initially filed, the action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September 2011 and March 2012. The Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making false and misleading statements in securities filings which statements artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount. Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action on behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012. The company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and filed a motion to dismiss on July 19, 2013. At present, the motion to dismiss the case is pending. INDEED INC: Court Amends Order Approving "Rosh" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ronald M. Whyte issued an amended order granting approval of a settlement in the action captioned ADAM ROSH, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. INDEED, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-03751-RMW, (N.D. Cal.). Judge Whyte's October 9, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/REESzafrom Leagle.com, provides that the putative California class claims, specifically the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief and the associated portions of the requests in the Class and Collective Action Complaint, are dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal does not affect the remainder of the Complaint, which will be resolved and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the settlement nor does it affect the scope of the definition of Released Claims. Indeed has agreed to pay Class Counsel their reasonable attorney fees, subject to these modifications of the terms of the Stipulation, to which the Settling Parties have stipulated: (a) the Maximum Amount for Payments to Participating Claimants will be $651,750, instead of $644,000, and (b) the Maximum Amount for Attorney Fee Payments will be 25% of the Maximum Settlement Amount after subtracting allocated litigation and claims administration costs and the incentive award, i.e., the Maximum Amount for Attorney Fee Payments will be $217,250. Per the terms of the Stipulation, the "Actual Amount for Attorney Fee Payments" will mean the Maximum Amount for Attorney Fee Payments multiplied by the percentage of the Maximum Amount for Payments to Participating Claimants that is actually claimed and therefore must be paid to the Settlement Class Members, i.e., the claims rate or claims percentage. Indeed has also agreed to pay Class Counsel allowable litigation costs and associated litigation expenses in the matter up to the maximum gross amount of $10,000, and Indeed has agreed to pay an enhancement award in the total maximum gross amount of $1,000 to the Plaintiff to reimburse him for his unique services and execution of a general release. KATHERINE M. FORSTER -- Katherine.Forster@mto.com -- MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, Los Angeles, CA. Attorneys for Defendant INDEED, INC. INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Appeals Class Cert. Order in "Wallace" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- IntraLinks Holdings, Inc., et al., seek permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to take an interlocutory appeal from the September 30, 2014 order entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York certifying a class in the lawsuit commenced by William D. Wallace. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the Appeals Court should grant interlocutory review of the District Court's erroneous holding that, although "only those who can trace their shares to [an] allegedly misleading registration statement have standing [to bring] a Section 11 claim" under the Securities Act of 1933, even if such tracing must be proven on a plaintiff- by-plaintiff basis, tracing is exclusively "a merits issue that the court need not consider at the class certification stage"; and (2) Whether the Appeals Court should grant interlocutory review of the District Court's erroneous holding that, when a plaintiff seeks to invoke the "fraud-on-the-market" theory of reliance, "arguments concerning the proper class period belong more properly to the discussion of damages, not class certification." The underlying lawsuit is a putative securities class action brought against the IntraLinks Defendants, certain current and former independent directors of IntraLinks, and the underwriters of IntraLinks' April 6, 2011 Secondary Offering. The Plaintiff brings claims under the Exchange Act, for alleged fraud, and for alleged misrepresentations in the registration statement and prospectus for IntraLinks' Secondary Offering. The other Defendants-Appellants are Andrew Damico, Anthony Plesner, and Patrick J. Wack, Jr., Brian J. Conway, Peter Gyenes, Thomas Hale, Habib Kairouz, Robert C. McBride and Harry D. Taylor, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Lazard Capital Markets LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. Petitioners Intralinks Holdings, Incorporated, Andrew Damico, Anthony Plesner and Patrick J. Wack, Jr., are represented by: Mark Holland, Esq. Abigail K. Hemani, Esq. Mary K. Dulka, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 8th Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 813-8800 Facsimile: (212) 355-3333 E-mail: markholland@goodwinprocter.com ahemani@goodwinprocter.com mdulka@goodwinprocter.com Petitioners Brian J. Conway, Peter Gyenes, Thomas Hale, Habib Kairouz, Robert C. McBride and Harry D. Taylor are represented by: Jay B. Kasner, Esq. James R. Carroll, Esq. David S. Clancy, Esq. Christopher G. Clark, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 4 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-2628 Facsimile: (917) 777-2628 E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com james.carroll@skadden.com david.clancy@skadden.com anthony.clark@skadden.com Petitioners Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Jefferies & Company, Incorporated, Lazard Capital Markets LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Incorporated and Pacific Crest Securities LLC are represented by: Jonathan Polkes, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 5th Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 E-mail: jonathan.polkes@weil.com Plaintiffs-Respondents Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and William D. Wallace are represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 357-0370 Facsimile: (312) 357-0369 E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com The appellate case is captioned Wallace v. Intralinks Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-03836, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The class action lawsuit is Wallace v. Intralinks Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-CV- 08861, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. KEY PROGRAM: $430,500 Settlement in Isiaho Case Get Final Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman granted final approval of a class and collective action settlement in REDEMPTER ISIAHO AND TERESSA WILLIAMS on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others who are similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KEY PROGRAM, INC., WILLIAM LYTTLE, WESLEY J. COTTER, and MICHAEL KAN, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-30137-KPN, (D. Mass.). The court found that a $430,500.00 settlement amount established pursuant to the Settlement is reasonable and adequate. The court approved an enhancement award in the amount of $9,000 to each of the Named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives. Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses for class administration in the amount of $129,150 was granted. "This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear his or her own costs, except as set forth herein, and with this court retaining exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement, including disbursement of the Settlement Amount," wrote Judge Neiman in his October 9, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/2vgvo6from Leagle.com. Michael Kan, Defendant, represented by James A. Musgrave -- jmusgrave@rcfp.com -- Roberts, Carroll, Feldstein & Peirce. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York Court -------------------------------------------------------------- In August 2014, Zubair Patel, Alan Nguyen and Carmen Valentino filed separate, putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers, according to the company's Oct. 10, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2014. Each complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. LA BAGUETTE: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Hernandez" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Hernandez on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. La Baguette North, Inc., Guillermina Uribe, individually, and Alejandro Lopez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07942 (N.D. Ill., October 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants are engaged in the business of producing and distributing baked goods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis D. Martin, Esq. Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL, LTD. Two Prudential Plaza, 180 N Stetson, Suite 3150 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 540-1230 E-mail: amartin@cslaw.com acaffarelli@cslaw.com LONDON SILVER: "Nalven" Class Suit Consolidated in Antitrust MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Nalven v. The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04591, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-08189-VEC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the proceeding captioned In re: London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md- 02573-VEC. The actions in the multidistrict litigation share factual issues arising from largely similar allegations that the Defendant Banks conspired to manipulate the prices of silver and silver derivatives through their membership on The London Silver Fixing, Ltd., a panel that meets privately on a daily basis to determine the market price of silver. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Anthony Barile, III, Esq. Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: pbarile@gelaw.com lnussbaum@gelaw.com Defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A., is represented by: Michael Lacovara, Esq. Leah Friedman, Esq. Matthew James Galvin, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 277-4000 Facsimile: (212) 277-4001 E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com leah.friedman@freshfields.com matthew.galvin@freshfields.com - and - Timothy J. Coleman, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP 700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 777-4500 Facsimile: (202) 777-4555 E-mail: tim.coleman@freshfields.com LONDON SILVER: Two Antitrust Suits Consolidated in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized two similar lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square): (1) Nalven v. The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:14-04591, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and (2) Nicholson v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:14-05682, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The proceeding is captioned In re: London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02573-VEC. The actions share factual issues arising from largely similar allegations that the Defendant Banks conspired to manipulate the prices of silver and silver derivatives through their membership on The London Silver Fixing, Ltd., a panel that meets privately on a daily basis to determine the market price of silver. The case is assigned to the Honorable Valerie E. Caproni, who is already presiding over a somewhat related MDL -- MDL No. 2548, In re: Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation -- which involves allegations that the Defendant Banks conspired to manipulate the prices of gold and gold derivatives. HSBC, Deutsche Bank, and Scotiabank are also defendants in MDL No. 2548, and, indeed, previously argued to the judge presiding over the Nicholson action that the action was related to the MDL No. 2548 cases before Judge Caproni, and ought to be referred to her. In addition, the moving Nalven plaintiff, the Nicholson plaintiff, and plaintiff in the Eastern District of New York potential tag- along action all have cases in MDL No. 2548, and are represented by the same counsel as here. Plaintiff J. Scott Nicholson is represented by: Barbara J. Hart, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Esq. Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. Raymond Peter Girnys, Esq. Scott Vincent Papp, Esq. Vincent Briganti, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. White Plains Plaza One North Broadway, Suite 509 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: bhart@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com ghorn@lowey.com pstphillip@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com spapp@lowey.com vbriganti@lowey.com Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by: Amy Wilkie Ray, Esq. Charles F. Rule, Esq. Joseph J. Bial, Esq. CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT, LLP 700 6th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 862-2358 Facsimile: (202) 862-2400 E-mail: amy.ray@cwt.com rick.rule@cwt.com joseph.bial@cwt.com - and - Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq. CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP One World Financial Center New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 504-6579 Facsimile: (212) 504-6666 E-mail: peter.isajiw@cwt.com Defendants HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank U.S.A. N.A., HSBC Holdings plc and John Doe Nos. 1-50 are represented by: Leah Friedman, Esq. Matthew James Galvin, Esq. Michael Lacovara, Esq. FRIEDFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 277-4000 Facsimile: (212) 277-4001 E-mail: leah.friedman@freshfields.com matthew.galvin@freshfields.com michael.lacovara@freshfields.com - and - Timothy Joseph Coleman, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NM Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 777-4560 Facsimile: (202) 777-4555 E-mail: tim.coleman@freshfields.com Defendant The Bank of Nova Scotia is represented by: Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-3269 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 E-mail: ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com MADNI MART: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Pedro Flores, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Madni Mart U.S.A., Inc., Lasani International, Inc., Ali Akbar, individually, Nawaz A. Khan, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07951 (N.D. Ill., October 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a convenience store in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N. Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: 10 Ex-Players File Class Action Over Image Use ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duane Gang, writing for Daily News Journal, reports that ten former college football and basketball players -- including former Smyrna football standout Rod Wilks -- have filed a federal class- action lawsuit arguing that their images were improperly used without their permission. The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Oct. 3 in Nashville, targets ESPN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and eight NCAA athletic conferences, including the SEC. The former players also are suing licensing companies and television networks with ties to the athletic conferences. The players argue that the television networks, athletic conferences and licensing agencies conspired with one another to exploit rules forbidding student athletes from "competing in the marketplace for the value of their rights of publicity," according to the suit. In particular, the players say the form they signed giving the NCAA permission to use their name or picture to "generally promote" sporting events has been exploited. They argue the term isn't defined and therefore does not give the NCAA or any third party the authority to sell or license their names or images, according to the court filing. The group is not suing the schools where they played, including Vanderbilt University, Tennessee State and the University of Tennessee. Those filing the lawsuit: * Javon Marshall, of Nashville, played on Vanderbilt University's football team from 2010 to 2013. * Eric Samuels, of Eustis, Fla., played on Vanderbilt's football team from 2009 to 2012. Samuels also was a defensive back. * Sean Parker, of Los Angeles, was a member of the University of Washington football team from 2010 to 2013. * Patrick Miller, of Chicago, played basketball for Tennessee State University from 2010 to 2013. * Steven Clarke, of Nashville, played football at Vanderbilt from 2010 to 2013. * Rod Wilks, of Knoxville, was a member of the University of Tennessee football team from 2009 to 2012. * Byron Moore, also of Knoxville, played for the Vols from 2011 to 2013. * Chaz Moore, of Chattanooga, played football at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga from 2010 to 2013. * Marlon Walls, of Memphis, played for the Vols from 2009 to 2013. * Chris Conner, of Nashville, was a member of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore basketball team from 2008 to 2009. The case is similar to one filed by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon. In August, a federal judge in California ruled that NCAA limits on what Bowl Subdivision football and Division I basketball players can receive for playing sports violates antitrust laws. That case is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Separately, the NCAA and Electronic Arts received preliminary approval for a $60 million settlement to resolve claims that student athletes' images were used in video games without their permission. NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued in Illinois Over Defective MaxxForce Engines ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gettysburg Auto Transport, LLC, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Navistar International Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-08006 (N.D. Ill., October 14, 2014) concerns the emission system designed into Navistar MaxxForce Advanced EGR diesel engines sold in Navistar commercial trucks. The Plaintiff contends that the MaxxForce Engines at issue are all manufactured or distributed by Navistar and suffer from undisclosed design and manufacturing defects that cause them to repeatedly malfunction and fail diesel engine exhaust emissions standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Gettysburg Auto Transport, LLC, is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Orrtanna, Pennsylvania. Navistar International Corporation, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lisle, Illinois. Navistar designed, manufactured, delivered, supplied, marketed, leased and sold for profit the MaxxForce Engines. The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. Erik E. Sardina, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com esardina@litedepalma.com O'BRIEN AUTO: Faces Class Action Over Wage Theft, Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hana Kim, writing for Q13 Fox News, reports that a former car salesman says his employer shortchanged his commission and used racial slurs in the workplace. Now a class-action lawsuit is looming and it could affect dozens of others if the plaintiff wins. The lawsuit is against O'Brien Auto Group, an auto empire, which has dealerships all over Western Washington, including Tacoma, Kirkland and Seattle. It was business as usual outside Toyota of Kirkland on Oct. 7 despite a giant lawsuit claiming wage theft and discrimination. "I told them to stop it, but they didn't," plaintiff Ruhul Kayshel said. Mr. Kayshel, a former salesmen, says the dealership stole up to 30% of his commissions on every car sale. "There are hundreds of employees being cheated hundreds of dollar per car sale," attorney Stephen Teller said. Mr. Kayshel says the wage theft is also happening to his co- workers and has now filed a class-action lawsuit against Toyota of Kirkland and its owner, Michael O'Brien. O'Brien is a former Seahawks player who owns a number of car dealerships across Western Washington. Mr. Kayshel has also filed a separate lawsuit claiming racial discrimination; he alleges a manager routinely used racial slurs. When he complained to upper management Mr. Kayshel claims he got no response. Instead he received a text message terminating his employment. "I was so upset and depressed," Mr. Kayshel said. "It's pretty blatant retaliation," Teller said. No one inside the dealership could talk about the lawsuit. Q13 Fox News also reached out to O'Brien but his attorney said they also had no comment since they saw the lawsuit for the first time on Oct. 7. "If I don't take the initiative this is going to keep on going," Mr. Kayshel said. Mr. Kayshel is the only representative of the class-action lawsuit as of Oct. 7. He is not disclosing exactly how much he is seeking in damages. The O'Brien Auto Group has 20 days to respond to the suit. OEY TRADING: Recalls Monica Snack Products ------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 14, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: OEY Trading Co. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9302 Affected products: -- 410 g. Monica Superior Quality Layer Snack Special Original flavor with all codes where milk is not declared on the label; -- 410 g. Monica Superior Quality Layer Snack Chocolate Flavour with all codes where milk is not declared on the label OLSON MEAT: Recalls 160 Lbs. of Pork Blood Product -------------------------------------------------- Olson Meat, an Orland, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 160 pounds of pork blood product that was produced without the benefit of federal inspection and outside regular inspection hours, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product subject to recall: 1 gallon jugs of "Olson Meat Company, Inc., Pork Blood With Vinegar" Jugs and cases contain a generic label with safe handling instructions (keep refrigerated or frozen) affixed to the handle of the jug and bear the establishment number "EST. 21799" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced Sept.9 and were shipped frozen on Sept. 10 to a single retailer in Hawaii. The problem was discovered by FSIS during routine in-plant verification activities. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Grant Wyler at (530) 865-4641. Media with questions about the recall should contact Grant Wyler or James Olson at (530) 865-4641. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. PAB TWO: Recalls Bed Bug Heat Treatment Systems ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with JAB Distributors dba PAB Two LLC, of Wheeling, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,700 bed bug heat treatment system. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The flexible, electrical conducting strip at the top of the heating element can break at the corners after multiple setups, posing an electrical fire hazard. PAB Two has received four reports of the flexible, electrical conducting strip breaking, including one report of a fire in a unit and three reports of units sparking. No injuries or significant property damage were reported. The recall involves the ThermalStrike Expedition bed bug heat treatment system. Consumers place items inside the system to kill bed bugs that may be in the items. The system is made of white, corrugated plastic and has four pieces: a base, a folding four- panel wall, a lid and a temperature sensor. The base and the walls are held together by hook and loop fasteners. When assembled, the unit is a box 31 inches long by 18 inches wide by 24 inches tall. The rear of the base has a power cord and the female connector of a power cable attached. The insides of the wall panels have a heating element composed of black heating film connected to a white, flexible electrical conducting strip. The male connector of the power cable is attached to the conducting strip and protrudes from the rear wall panel. The system is energized when the power cables are joined and the power cord is plugged into an electrical outlet. The words "ThermalStrike" and "Bed Bug Heat Treatment" are on the front of the unit. ThermalStrike is also printed on the heating element on the interior of the unit. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/H14qm1 The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Bedbug Central, Bedbug Supply, Protect-a-bed, Univar, pest control companies and pest control product distributors nationwide and online at Amazon from December 2011 through May 2014 for between $189 and $199. Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the Expedition and register their unit online to receive an ASC Diagnostic Unit free of charge. The diagnostic unit will immediately turn off the system when it detects a break in the conducting strip. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Removes "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Perez v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., Case No. 14-20975 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23766-CMA to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Todd Sidney Aidman, Esq. Lavern J. Wilson, Esq. FORD & HARRISON 101 E Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 261-7840 Facsimile: (813) 261-7899 E-mail: taidman@fordharrison.com lwilson@fordharrison.com POLYCEL STRUCTURAL: Removes MPG Suit to Alabama District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled MPG Tent Rentals v. Polycel Structural Foam Inc., Case No. CV-2014-903857, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01969-RDP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Mark Hill, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SAM HILL, LLC 265 Riverchase Parkway East Suite 202 Hoover, AL 35244 Telephone: (205) 985-5099 Facsimile: (205) 985-5093 E-mail: sam@samhilllaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kimberly R. Ward, Esq. Tammy L. Baker, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 870 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 332-3122 Facsimile: (205) 332-3131 E-mail: kimberly.ward@jacksonlewis.com BakerT@jacksonlewis.com PPL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Class Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- John Galdo, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. PPL corporation and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-05831-JS (E.D. Pa., October 14, 2014) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and proposed class members overtime premium for hours worked over 40 per week. PPL Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporate entity. PPL Electric Utilities Corporation is wholly-owned subsidiary of PPL Corporation and is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania (Lehigh County). Both companies are headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania (Lehigh County). The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com PRICELINE GROUP: Sued Over Illegally Collection of Resort Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Soule, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Priceline Group Inc., Marriott International, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1-50, Case No. 1:14-cv-00462 (D. Haw., October 10, 2014), arises from the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of resort fees. Marriott International, Inc. owns and operates 3,900 hotels around the world. The Priceline Group Inc. acts as a broker or agent for hotels, airlines, and other direct travel services providers. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Francis Perkin, Esq. Brandee J.K. Faria, Esq. PERKIN & FARIA LLLC 700 Bishop Street, Suite 1111 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 523-2300 E-mail: perkin@perkinlaw.com bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com - and - James J. Bickerton, Esq. BICKERTON DANG LLP 745 Fort Street, Suite 801 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 599-3811 E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 PULLIN LAW: Faces "Moskowitz" Injury Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Craig Moskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pullin Law Firm, P.C., Case No. 2:14-cv- 06010 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2014) asserts personal injury claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Jacob Fogelman, Esq. FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN LLC 305 Madison Ave., Suite 936 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (617) 559-1530 Facsimile: (617) 505-1540 E-mail: mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com PURE FOODS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Owed Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Mendez, Byron Herman, and Jess Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Pure Foods Management Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01515-SRU (D. Conn., October 14, 2014) is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages owed to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated hourly employees of the Defendants at their Popeye's stores. Pure Foods Management Group, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in Bayonne, New Jersey. The Defendants own and operate approximately 36 Popeye's franchise stores in Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Virginia. The Defendants' restaurants prepare fried chicken and other food items for dine-in or take-out from their restaurants. The Defendants are Pure Foods Management Group, Inc., Shahid Hashmi, Fazal Panezai, Albany Avenue Favorite Chicken, LLC, Charter Oak's Favorite Chicken, LLC, New London Favorite Chicken, LLC, North Haven's Favorite Chicken, LLC, North Heaven's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Trumbull's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Wallingford's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Carousel Center's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Palisades Favorite Chicken, LLC, South Shore's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Chicopee's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Holyoke's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Mass. Favorite Chicken I, LLC, Springfield Favorite Chicken, LLC, Rhode Island Favorite Chicken I, Inc., Rhode Island Favorite Chicken II, Inc., Rhode Island Favorite Chicken III, LLC, Harrison's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Hudson Mall's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Jersey City's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Journal Square's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Meadowland's Favorite Chicken, LLC, Newport Plaza's Favorite Chicken, LLC, West New York's Favorite Chicken, Inc., and Dulles Town Center Favorite Chicken, LLC. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Krayeske, Esq. KENNETH J. KRAYESKE LAW OFFICES 1 Linden Place, Unit 107 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 995-5842 Facsimile: (860) 760-6590 E-mail: attorney@kenkrayeske.com - and - Richard M. Paul, Esq. Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL MCINNES LLP 2000 Baltimore, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com REAL FOODS: Recalls 96 Units of "Mexican Cheddar Dip" Product ------------------------------------------------------------- Real Foods of Seattle, LLC, (WA) is initiating a voluntary recall of 96 units of "Mexican Cheddar Dip" product due to an undeclared allergen. This product contains egg, an allergen, which is not declared on the bottom label. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The product subject to the recall: 10-oz Quality Food Centers Mexican Cheddar Dip with UPC no. of 0 30223 00952 8 The above product was manufactured between 10/04/14 and 10/06/14 and shipped between 10/05/14 and 10/07/14 to a limited number of Quality Food Center stores in Washington State only. The newly launched product may bear one of the two UPC numbers listed in the table. This product was distributed and sold in a limited number of Quality Food Center stores in the following cities: Everett, (WA); Mill Creek, (WA); Sequim, (WA); Bothell, (WA); Port Townsend, (WA); Belfair, (WA); Lacy, (WA); Kirkland, (WA); Bellevue, (WA); Redmond, (WA); Stanwood, (WA) and Port Hadlock, (WA). No other products or code dates are affected by this recall. There have been no adverse reactions or illnesses attributed to the recalled item. Customers who have purchased this product and are sensitive to egg products or have egg allergies should not consume the above- mentioned product. This product may be returned to the store where purchased for a full refund. Consumers may call Patrick Quatsoe at 206-354-1921 for any further information Monday to Friday, between the hours of 8am-5pm (PST). REJUVENATION INC: Recalls Hanging Lamps Due to Risk of Injury ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Rejuvenation Inc., of Portland, Ore., a division of Williams- Somona, announced a voluntary recall of about 85 hanging lamps. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The cord system can fail to support the weight of the pendant causing it to fall, posing the risk of injury. Rejuvenation has received one report of the pendant detaching and falling. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Rejuvenation Haleigh Wire Dome Pendant hanging lamps sold in three different finishes: Lacquered polished brass, oil rubbed bronze and polished nickel. The lamp is a parabolic- shaped dome made of solid brass with an external wire structure and a ceiling plate. The lamp cord can vary in length from 14 inches to 200 inches. The lamps are illuminated by one 150-watt bulb. The lamp's canopy measures 5 ¬ inches wide and 12 inches long for item # A5908 or 8 inches long for item # A5909. The item number can be found on a white label inside the ceiling plate. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/0aKpaS The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold exclusively at Rejuvenation stores nationwide, Rejuvenation's catalog and Rejuvenation.com from July 2014 through Sept. 2014 for between $250 and $325. Consumers should immediately clear the area under the lamps and contact Rejuvenation for instructions on the free repair or replacement of recalled lamps, including shipping and charges incurred in inspecting, removing and replacing the lamps by using a licensed electrician. RENOWN REGIONAL: Nev. Sup. Court Rules on Appeal in "Wiley" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wiley brought a putative class action against Renown Regional Medical Center regarding its lien practices. Mr. Wiley was injured in a motorcycle accident and was treated for injuries at Renown. Renown did not bill Wiley's health insurance plan administrator, Cigna, for the treatment, but recorded a hospital lien against Wiley's potential tort recovery. Renown filed a summary judgment motion arguing that Wiley's Cigna policy did not cover Wiley's treatments, that Wiley could not assert breach of the provider agreement because he was not a third-party beneficiary to the agreement, and that Renown did not violate Nevada's hospital lien statutes NSR 108.590 and NRS 449.757. Wiley also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Renown violated NRS 108.590 and NRS 449.757. The district court held a hearing on the summary judgment motions and subsequently denied Renown's motion and granted Wiley's motion. The court found, among other things, that Renown's lien practices violated NRS 108.590 and NRS 449.757, that Wiley was a third-party beneficiary to the provider agreement, and that Renown was not permitted to decide whether Wiley's injuries were covered by his Cigna policy. Notably, the court also found in favor of Wiley on his breach of contract and intentional interference with contract claims, even though the full merits of these claims were not specifically argued in the cross-motions for summary judgment or at the hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada, sitting en banc, concludes that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on those two causes of action and grant, in part, this petition for a writ of mandamus. The Nevada Supreme Court decline to consider the other issues and arguments raised by the parties and therefore deny the remainder of the petition. The case is RENOWN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, A NEVADA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE BRENT T. ADAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and MICHAEL WILEY, AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Party in Interest, Case No. 62666. The Nevada Supreme Court's Oct. 2, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/kw2h2Tfrom Leagle.com. SAM KANE: Recalls 2,633 Lbs. of Ground Beef Chub Product -------------------------------------------------------- Sam Kane Beef Processors, LLC, a Corpus Christi, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 2,633 pounds of ground beef chub product that may be contaminated with foreign materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product subject to USDA recall: 10 lb. chubs of "HEB Ground Beef 73% Fine 6/10" The ground beef chubs were produced and packaged on Sept. 11, 2014. The product bears the establishment number "EST 337" on the package box. The product was sent to retail establishments in Texas for further processing. The problem was discovered by the retail company. A store clerk noticed pieces of small blue plastic inside the packages and alerted the company to the problem. The company stated the likely source of the plastic is a rubber glove. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact Alfred Bausch, General Manager, at (361) 241-5000. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. SAM KANE: Recalls 90,987 Lbs. of Ground Beef Products ----------------------------------------------------- Sam Kane Beef Processors, a Corpus Christi, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 90,987 pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's FSIS announced. These products are subject to recall: -- 3 lb. packages of "HEB Ground Chuck", bearing the establishment number "337", a production date of "09/12/14" and a use by date of "10/02/14". -- 5 lb. packages of "HEB Ground Beef", "73% LEAN 27% FAT", bearing the establishment number "337", a production date of "09/15/14" and a use by date of "10/05/14". -- 10 lb. packages of "HEB Ground Beef", "73% LEAN 27% FAT", bearing the establishment number "337", a production date of "09/18/14" and a use by date of "10/08/14". -- 10 lb. clear film packages of formed patties made from Sam Kane Beef Processors "Ground Chuck", bearing the establishment number "337", a production date of "9/09/14" and a use by date of "9/29/14". The products were produced on the above dates (between Sept. 9, 2014 and Sept. 18, 2014, with a sell by dates between Sept. 29, 2014 and Oct. 8, 2014) and bear the establishment number "337" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. The products were shipped to retail outlets in Texas. The problem was discovered after a retail location received consumer complaints involving ground beef and pieces of metal, approximately 3 mm in size. Four separate consumer complaints were received with one consumer reporting a chipped tooth. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness from consumption of these products should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Herb Meischen, Sr. V.P. Sales & Marketing at (361) 241-5000 Ext. 250. Media with questions about the recall should contact Alfred Bausch, General Manager at (361) 241-5000 Ext. 213. SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Aileen Luciano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Springleaf Finance Corporation and Springleaf Financial Services of Wisconsin, Inc., collectively d/b/a Springleaf Financial Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-01261 (E.D. Wis., October 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephones via an automatic telephone dialing system without their prior express consent. The Defendants offer short term loans at high interest rates, primarily to consumers whose credit or other circumstances make them unable to obtain credit from other sources such as banks or credit unions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com SUNBURST FOODS: Recalls Fresh Bites and Private Labeled Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- SunBurst Foods, Goldsboro NC is voluntarily recalling all of its SunBurst, Fresh Bites and Private labeled products which are currently in the market because these products have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. All codes, all sell-by dates and sizes of these brands are being recalled: -- SunBurst -- Fresh Bites Private label products are identifed by these brand names: River Edge Farms, CFW, Southern Zest, CJ's Vending, Binford Street Deli, Middle Georgia Vendors, Roanoke Foods, Select Foods, and Jesse Jones (Double Chili Dogs) The products being recalled were sold in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia. The recall was initiated as a result of sampling and testing performed by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. To date, SunBurst is unaware of any illnesses related to these products. Products not manufactured but distributed by SunBurst such as cakes, burritos, and chips are not part of this recall. Consumers who have purchased the affected products are urged to destroy them or return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company between 8AM and 5PM EST at 1-919-778-2151. SYNTHES (CANADA): Recalls Radiolucent Bone Lever with Double Tip ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 6, 2014 Posting date: October 14, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-41781 Recalled Products: Radiolucent Bone Lever with Double Tip The subject devices were delivered with particle residue from adhesive tape which was used to bind the device during transport. Companies: Manufacturer Synthes (Canada) Ltd. 2566 Meadowpine Blvd. Mississauga L5N 6P9 Ontario Canada TARGET CORP: Minnesota Judge Blocks Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a proposed $183,000 class action settlement between Target Corp. and hundreds of pharmacies over alleged robo-texts has been blocked by a Minnesota federal judge who said the deal could result in much of the award reverting to the company. U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle of the U.S. District of Minnesota refused Oct. 8 to give preliminary approval to the settlement in Small v. Target because it would allow any unclaimed funds to go back into Target's pocket. Judge Kyle noted that the deal is a "claims made" settlement, which is dependent on each class member filing a claim, and typically produces very low response, or take, rates. It is common for no more than 15 percent of those eligible to even bother filing claims, particularly when the likely award is relatively small, according to class-action settlement research. That means, Judge Kyle wrote, "(S)ince the parties' agreement provides that any unclaimed funds will revert to Target, a low take rate creates the very real possibility that much, if not most, of the settlement fund will return to Target's hands." Lead plaintiff and Ohio pharmacist Jonathan Small and Jotmar, Inc., his pharmacy, allege Target in 2012 violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act, by sending automatically generated faxes advertising Target's services to his and at least 488 other pharmacies around the country without express permission or an opt-out notice. According to court documents, the proposed deal between the parties would create a $183,375 settlement fund, about 30 percent of which -- $61,125 -- would be allocated to plaintiffs' attorneys fees. Although the federal statutes authorize $500 in damages for each unlawfully sent fax, individual class-member pharmacies would receive just $375 if a valid claim is submitted. "Any portion of the Settlement Fund that is not exhausted shall be retained by Target," the documents show. Judge Kyle's order said the judge expressed his concern about that reversion clause, and raised the possibility of denying the deal, when he heard arguments on Sept. 12. Target later filed a supplemental brief noting that several courts had approved deals with such clauses and urged Kyle to do so, as well. But about one week later, in a response to Target's arguments, the plaintiffs said they now agreed with the judge's view of the clause and asked him to deny their own motion for settlement approval, Judge Kyle recounted. As a result, he wrote, "(T)here is no there is no longer a live Motion upon which to rule." Target is represented by three attorneys with the firm Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP. Plaintiffs' counsel include attorneys with Anderson + Wanca; Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield; and Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson. TOTAL SCREEN: Faces "Galvan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Galvan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Total Screen Solutions, Inc., Nick Mills, and Gary Mills, Case No. 2:14-cv-00421 (S.D. Tex., October 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants are engaged in the solids control business for the oil industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com TOYS R US: Recalls Toy Toaster Sets Due to Choking Hazard --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Toys R Us, of Wayne, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 30,000 in the U.S. and about 6,000 in Canada Just Like Home Toy Toaster Sets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The plastic toast, under pressure, can crack and break into small pieces creating sharp edges and posing a choking hazard. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall includes the Just Like Home brand toy toaster sets. The teal blue plastic toy toaster has silver trim around the slice opening on top, with an orange slider handle on the side and orange 3-dimensional adjustment knob outlined with orange dots in a half moon shape on the face of the toaster in the left bottom corner. "Just like home" is printed in white on the front right bottom corner of the toaster. The toaster measures about 4 inches in height by 5-1/2 inches in length by 2 inches in width. The toaster set was sold with two plastic toast slices and two plastic half bagel slice accessories. Model number 5F60589 is printed on a white label on the bottom of the toaster and above the UPC bar code in the lower right hand corner of the product packaging. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/VnlFpl The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Toys R Us stores nationwide and online at toysrus from July 2013 through August 2014 for about $10. Consumers should immediately take this product away from children and return it to any Toys R Us to receive a full refund. UNITED STATES: Court Limits "Mandatory" Immigration Detention ------------------------------------------------------------- In a ruling that could enable more than 100 Massachusetts detainees per year to argue for their freedom, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has rejected the federal government's application of a "mandatory" immigration detention provision that prevents certain noncitizens from requesting release on bond during their immigration proceedings. The ruling came on Oct. 6 in a pair of cases -- including one brought by the ACLU of Massachusetts, the national ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, the Political Asylum / Immigration Representation Project, and Lutheran Social Services -- in which noncitizens argued that they were being improperly detained without even the opportunity to request their release. The decision is part of an ACLU class action lawsuit filed in August 2013. Following the district court's ruling in that class action in May, at least 27 people have obtained their release from detention after demonstrating to an immigration judge that they did not pose a flight risk or danger warranting continued detention. Many of them are long-time lawful permanent residents whom immigration authorities were detaining on the basis of old criminal convictions. On Oct. 6 First Circuit ruling decides the core issue in that class action: "mandatory" immigration detention cannot apply to noncitizens who have been placed into deportation proceedings because of offenses for which they were released from custody long ago. "This ruling ensures that many noncitizens in Massachusetts will be allowed their day in court to argue for their freedom," said Adriana Lafaille, an Equal Justice Works legal fellow at the ACLU of Massachusetts, whose fellowship is sponsored by Greenberg Traurig, LLP. "Rather than automatic, costly detentions of noncitizens like Mr. Gordon, who are plucked from their communities based on old offenses, the decision means that only those who need to be detained will be detained, while those who can safely return to their families while their cases are pending may be allowed to do so." ACLU client Clayton Gordon is a named plaintiff in the class action and one of the two noncitizens whose case was decided by the Oct. 6 ruling. Mr. Gordon came to the United States at age six, has been a lawful permanent resident for more than 30 years, and served in the U.S. Army. In June, 2013, immigration authorities detained Gordon and held him without the possibility of bond because of a 2008 drug offense, even though he spent less than a day in jail for that offense and had completed his probationary term. After his arrest for that offense in 2008, Mr. Gordon and his fiancee had settled down, had a son, and bought a home. In 2013, Gordon was running his own contracting business and working on a project to open a halfway house in the Hartford area for women coming out of incarceration. But, as he drove to work on June 20, 2013, Gordon was surrounded by armed immigration agents, seized, and placed into mandatory detention. In October 2013, as a result of the ACLU's lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor ordered that Gordon was entitled to an individual bond hearing. An immigration judge granted him bond, and Gordon was reunited with his family in November 2013. The Oct. 6 ruling upholds the federal district judge's decision and ensures that Gordon can remain with his family while he awaits a ruling in his pending immigration case. Leiticia Castaneda, whose case was paired with Gordon's, was also unlawfully subjected to mandatory detention. She too had been held without the possibility of release on the basis of a 2008 drug offense. Following the decision of the District Court requiring a bond hearing in her case, the government released her on her own recognizance, reuniting her with her family during the pendency of her immigration proceedings. Ms. Castaneda was represented by immigration attorney Gregory Romanovsky. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in her case. "The Court rejected a policy that undermines both our constitutional values and common sense," said Eunice Lee, an attorney at the Immigrants' Rights Project of the national ACLU. "Our laws don't allow the government to put immigrants in mandatory lock-up simply because they had run-ins with criminal justice system many years ago. The Court's decision prevents the irrational, unjust detention of these individuals without basic due process of law." For a copy of the First Circuit's opinion, go to: http://is.gd/nmt7fd For more information about "mandatory" immigration detention, go to: http://aclum.org/mandatory_detention UNIV. OF TEXAS MEDICAL: Motion to Centralize 7 Actions Junked ------------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: TEXAS PRISON CONDITIONS-OF-CONFINEMENT LITIGATION, MDL NO. 2569, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and 26 related individual defendants, who are TDCJ officials or employees, moved to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Texas. The litigation consists of seven actions. These seven actions (six individual wrongful death actions and one class action) involve allegations that inmates in various Texas state prison facilities -- in particular, prisoners with disabilities -- have suffered injury or death as a result of conditions in inmate living quarters alleged often to be brutally hot during the summer months. In each of the seven actions, plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of plaintiffs or their decedents to protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and that defendants TDCJ and University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) failed to provide reasonable accommodation for the disabilities of plaintiffs or their decedents in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Undoubtedly, the actions share certain factual issues regarding, inter alia, defendants' policies and practices with respect to inmate housing conditions during periods of high heat. The moving TDCJ defendants represented that defendant UTMB and related defendants do not oppose the motion to centralize. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Chairman John G. Heyburn, II, ordered on October 9, 2014, that the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, for centralization of these actions is denied. A copy of the Order is available at http://is.gd/6845uSfrom Leagle.com. VIGIL BEEF: Recalls 48 Lbs. of Beef Jerky Products -------------------------------------------------- Vigil Beef Jerky Co., an Albuquerque, N.M. establishment, is recalling approximately 48 pounds of beef jerky products because they were shipped with the mark of inspection when they were produced under a retail exemption, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products subject to recall include: -- 1-oz. bags of "Vigil's Beef Jerky Co. Original Beef Jerky" with package code "8121421210" and packaging date of "8/12/14" -- 3-oz. bags of "Vigil's Beef Jerky Co. Teriyaki Beef Jerky" with package code "8271427410" and packing date "8/27/14" -- 1-oz., 3-oz., and 6-oz. bags of "Vigil's Beef Jerky Co. Jalapeno Beef Jerky" with package code "09021425110" and packaging date "9/2/14" -- 1-oz., 3-oz., and 6-oz. of "Vigil's Beef Jerky Co. Original Beef Jerky" with package code "09031411110" and packaging code "9/3/14" Any Vigil Beef Jerky Co. product with the mark of inspection produced from Aug. 5 - Sept. 2, 2014, with lot codes ending in "10" plus the one lot on Sept. 3, 2014 identified above All products bear the establishment number "EST. 34272" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were sold in retail establishments in New Mexico. The problem was discovered as a result of an ongoing investigation. FSIS believes the company produced product under a retail exemption but made use of the Federal mark of inspection, which is a violation of Federal regulations. FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a health care provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website. Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the recall can contact the Jeremy Peck or at (505) 328-4490. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. WHOLE FOODS: Bid for Appointment of Co-Lead Class Counsel Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Melinda Harmon denied Plaintiffs Uri Gedalia and Kira Lewis' motion for appointment of the Golan Firm and Reese Richman LLP as interim co-lead class counsel in the action they commenced against Whole Foods Market Services, Inc., et al. (CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-03517, S.D. Texas). A copy of the District Court's Opinion and Order dated Sept. 29, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/R7BS8hfrom Leagle.com. WFM Private Label Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Misty Ann Cabaniss Blair, Giovanna A. Ferrari, Esq. -- gferrari@seyfarth.com -- Jay William Connolly, Esq. -- jconnolly@sefarth.com -- Joseph J Orzano, Esq. -- jorzano@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP. ZIMMER DENTAL: Recalls Tapered Screw-Vent Implant ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 9, 2014 Posting date: October 14, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-41793 Recalled Products: Tapered Screw-Vent Implant Zimmer Dental is conducting a recall of a single lot of the tapered screw-vent implant, catalog TSV4B11, because the inner vial could be potentially mislabelled as "04.1 x 10mml" instead of "04.1 x 11.5mml". The main label on the outside of the package, the outer vial label, the cap label, and the patient chart label contain the correct information regarding the implant within the package. Companies: Manufacturer Zimmer Dental Inc. 1900 Aston Avenue Carlsbad, 92008 California United States * Companies With More Independent Contractors Face More Risks ------------------------------------------------------------- Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that a new survey from ICon Professional Services found companies with a workforce chock-full of independent contractors are facing more financial risks with respect to misclassifying workers than they anticipate. "I was surprised by the extent to which senior executives have such a blind spot to their total risk exposure, and don't realize the significant costs associated with misclassification," said ICon chief executive officer Patricia Griffin in a statement. She went on to note that it is difficult for the C-suite to properly understand these issues since many cases are settled and thus are not in the public domain. However, a whopping 84 percent of respondents said they planned to maintain or increase their use of independent contractors next year. Not only that, but companies also don't understand the severity of the penalties associated with worker misclassification. According to the survey, 77 percent of respondents believed their total risk to be below $100,000, when the reality is that for 100 independent contractors paid on average $100,000 annually, a company's financial risk could exceed $4.5 million. "Properly classifying your workforce is no longer a choice," says Dana Shaw, chief operating officer at ICon. "With the contingent labor market on the rise, business leaders can't afford to ignore the importance of properly classifying their employees." ********* 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 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *