/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141202.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 239 Headlines AADG INC: Faces "Behr" Suit Alleging Employment Discrimination ADT SECURITY: Security System Compromised by $10 Radio, Suit Says AEGON COMPANIES: "Pinney" Suit Moved From California to Iowa ALLERGAN INC: Sued by Shareholder Supporting Ackman-Led Takeover ALLMAX NUTRITION: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Product Label ALCOBRA LTD: Faces "Rahman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports AMERICAN RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims AMYRIS INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek Interlocutory Review APOLLO GLOBAL: Has January 2 Deadline to Respond to Class Action APOLLO GLOBAL: Class Action Parties Engaged in Limited Discovery APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties Expect to Enter Into Formal Settlement AVALON DOWNTOWN: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BAI BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Antioxidant Products, Action Claims BANK OF NEW YORK: Pending Forex Lawsuits in Discovery Phase BAYER HEALTHCARE: District Court Narrows "Yuncker" Lawsuit BITCASA INC: Faces Suit Over Ending of "Infinite" Storage Plans BRANCH BANKING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act CINEMARK USA: "De Ponton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Leblanc" Suit Claims COCA-COLA CO: Fails to Properly Encrypt Workers' PII, Suit Claims CONDE NAST: Has Agreed to Fork Over $5.8MM to Spike Interns Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes "Thompson" Suit to S.D. California CREATIVE FOOD: "Tantawy" Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York CUYAHOGA, OHIO: Faces "Mulloy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages DHR INTERNATIONAL: Case Management & Pretrial Order Entered DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Richards" Suit Over High Electricity Rate DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Faces Soffer Suit Over Merger With Siemens DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Faces Union Suit Over Merger With Siemens FEDERAL HOME: Filed Response to Motion to Dismiss FIT FOODS: Faces "Canizalez" Over Misleading Product Label FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Court Narrows V. Malon's Discovery Requests FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces "Shuppert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GECESC ASSOCIATES: Accused of Bias and Sexual Harassment in Texas GILLETTE COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Battery Leakage GOODMAN GLOBAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing in "Kotsur" on Jan. 19 GOOGLE INC: Hourly Staff Not as Favored as Contractors, Suit Says GURSTEL CHARGO: Obtains Initial Approval of "Smith" Suit Accord HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Certified Class in False Advertising Suit HOME DEPOT: Faces Salisbury Bank Suit Over Alleged Data Breach IMPAX LABORATORIES: Took $112-Mil. Bribe From Endo, Suit Says IMPERVA INC: Lead Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Filed INNERWORKINGS INC: Files Motion to Dismiss "Van Noppen" Case INTEGRITY SOLUTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act INTELLIGENDER LLC: 9th Cir. Enters Order on Appeal in Calif. Suit KKR FINANCIAL: Delaware Chancery Court Grants Motions to Dismiss KOLBE & KOLBE: Claims in "Haley" Defective Windows Suit Dismissed LA FIESTA: "Henderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages LAYERED TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Morris" Suit to W.D. Missouri LEADING EDGE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act LINKEDIN CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Spamming Class Suit MAGNUM HUNTER: Intends to Vigorously Defend Plaintiffs' Appeal MARICOPA COUNTY CCD: Faces Class Suit Over Leak of Students Data MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Harassing Ecuadorian Worker MED REV: Sued in New York for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act MEDTRONIC INC: "Hendrich" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court MISO RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NATURE'S BOUNTY: Court Dismissed "Mazzeo" Marketing Class Suit NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Securities Suit Tossed Without Prejudice OMEGA FLEX: "Schoelwer" Plaintiff Refiled Case in May 2014 PALM WEST: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PARADISE MANOR: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA PERFORMANCE FOOD: Removes "Harris" Suit to Florida District Court PRO-MARK CONTRACTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Suits Over Flushable Butt Wipes Continue PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT: "Szczurek" FDCPA Case Dismissed PROSUPPS USA: Accused of Wrongful Labeling of ProSupps PS Whey QR ENERGY: Class Suit Over Breitburn Merger at Preliminary Stage RADDATZ LAW: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lipscomb" Action Claims RANCHO CORDOVA: Dec. 15 Status Conference Set in "B.O.L.T." Suit REMAX INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J. RICK'S CABARET: Strippers Get $10.8MM Over Dance Dollars Claims ROUSE'S ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Denial in "Ticknor" Case Upheld RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims S. KATZMAN PRODUCE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "McMahon" Suit Claims SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SCHUFF INT'L: Faces Merger Class Suit in Delaware Chancery Court SERVICE SOURCE: Accused of Exaggerating Financial Assets SIMPLICITY BANCORP: Faces Class Action Relating to Merger TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Defective Airbags TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Vukadinovic" Suit Over Airbag Defects TEMPOSITIONS INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination TEMPUR-SEALY INT'L: Court Enters Discovery Order in "Todd" Suit TESLA MOTORS: Trial Court Dismissed Class Action TGI FRIDAYS: Removes "Grace" Suit to New Jersey District Court THREE TWENTY FIVE: Faces "Xenos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TREE.COM INC: Expects Administration of Settlement in 4th Quarter TREE.COM INC: "Dijkstra" Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Appeal UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Requests in "O'Connor" Suit Ruled on US AGRICULTURE DEP'T: Choctaw Nation Can't Share in Bias Funds VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Faces "Sanborn" Suit Over High Electricity Rate WEST 44TH STREET: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS: Remand of Painkiller Case Reversed ZYNGA INC: Court Vacates Scheduled Hearing in "DeStefano" Case ZYNGA INC: Case Management Conference in "Reyes" Suit Vacated ZYNGA INC: Court Takes Motion to Dismiss Under Submission ********* AADG INC: Faces "Behr" Suit Alleging Employment Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Behr and Employees Similarly Situated to Him v. AADG, Inc. dba Curries, Case No. 3:14-cv-03075-DEO (N.D. Iowa, November 21, 2014) alleges claims of employment discrimination against the Defendant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Sherinian, Esq. Melissa C. Hasso, Esq. SHERINIAN & HASSO LAW FIRM 3737 Woodland Ave., Suite 630 West Des Moines, IA 50266 Telephone: (515) 224-2079 Facsimile: (515) 224-2321 E-mail: sherinianlaw@msn.com mhasso@sherinianlaw.com ADT SECURITY: Security System Compromised by $10 Radio, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- A $10 radio allows hackers to infiltrate ADT security systems, compromising the so-called "peace of mind" the service offers, a federal class action alleges, reports Lisa Klein at Courthouse News Service. The complaint filed November 9 by Illinois resident Dale Baker says that the home and small-business customers of ADT Security Services "are far less safe than ADT leads them to believe." Customers sign a three-year agreement when they purchase equipment that relies on "unencrypted and unauthenticated" wireless signals, according to the complaint. Baker says hackers can exploit these flaws to disable the system, cause false alarms to go off and even use the system's own cameras to spy on people. The lawsuit points to an article in Forbes magazine that a simple software-defined radio (SDR) allows hackers to detect when doors are opened and closed. With a more complicated SDR they can manipulate the system, according to the complaint. This leaves consumers "insufficiently protected from intrusion and interference by unauthorized third parties," Baker says. Indeed Baker's home security system was allegedly hacked twice, both times triggering an alarm that led to the police being called. ADT says that it holds 25 percent of the residential and 13 percent of the small-business security industries, with its systems used in about 6.5 million homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. The company advertises "peace of mind" for its customers, offering systems that use advanced technology and are "safe and reliable," according to the complaint. But Baker says ADT "knows that its systems are vulnerable to intrusion." Despite admitting that it uses professional hackers to test ADT systems, the Delaware company with principal offices in Boca Raton, Fla., does not alert customers to any issues, according to the complaint. The class seeks an injunction requiring ADT to change its marketing materials and use encrypted signals in its security systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Zimmerman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington St., Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 AEGON COMPANIES: "Pinney" Suit Moved From California to Iowa ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit captioned Pinney v. AEGON Companies Pension Plan, Case No. 3:14-cv-01004, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa (Cedar Rapids). The Iowa District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00125-LRR to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Henry Kim, Esq. James Pieper Keenley, Esq. BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP 1010 Grayson Street, Suite Three Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 225-0696 Facsimile: (510) 225-1095 E-mail: bkim@bkkllp.com jkeenley@bkkllp.com - and - Teresa Renaker, Esq. LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476-9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 E-mail: trenaker@lewisfeinberg.com The Defendant is represented by: David R. Levin, Esq. DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP 1500 K Street, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 230-5181 Facsimile: (202) 230-8465 E-mail: david.levin@dbr.com - and - Michael P. Pulliam, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-7500 Facsimile: (415) 591-7510 E-mail: michael.pulliam@dbr.com - and - Wilford H. Stone, Esq. LYNCH, DALLAS, PC 526 Second Avenue, SE PO Box 2457 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Telephone: (319) 365-9101 Facsimile: (319) 365-9512 E-mail: wstone@lynchdallas.com ALLERGAN INC: Sued by Shareholder Supporting Ackman-Led Takeover ---------------------------------------------------------------- Billionaire William Ackman's plan to take over Allergan found support in a new federal shareholder action amid reports that Activis put in a $60 billion bid, reports Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service. Mary Tolaro, an Ohio-based Allergan shareholder, filed a derivative and direct class action complaint against Allergen's board of directors on November 12. The lawsuit comes on the heels of an adverse ruling against Allergan shareholders in the Delaware Chancery court, which on Nov. 7, found that it is too early to let stockholders install board members favorable to the takeover. Ackman is aggressively pursuing Allergan through his hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital Management, which has teamed up with Canadian firm Valeant Pharmaceutical International to mount a hostile takeover of the company. On Aug. 1, the pharmaceutical filed a federal complaint in Santa Ana to keep Allergan's board of directors intact. Valeant and Ackman wanted to install executives more receptive to a merger; the Allergan board had rejected Pershing's unsolicited offer more than two years ago. Pershing and Valeant made a $54 billion offer for the company in June, which Allergan again rebuffed. U.S. District David Carter dealt the company a blow last week when he declined to block Pershing from voting its 9.7 percent stake at a Dec. 18 Allergan shareholder meeting. Allergan has appealed. In another twist in the saga, Bloomberg reported this week that Irish firm Actavis is negotiating a deal with Allergan to acquire the company for $60 billion and beat off Ackman's acquisition. Tolaro's shareholder complaint meanwhile says that Allergan directors are more interested in protecting their salaries and bonuses than protecting stockholders. Their rejection of the Valeant deal contravenes advice from investment bank Goldman Sachs, according to the complaint. Since 2011, CEO David E.I. Pyott has earned $15.7 million per year and holds Allergan options worth $350 million, the complaint says. "Allergan's Board ignored Goldman Sachs' advice and instead embarked on a course of conduct designed solely to entrench the individual board members in office and to deter an acquisition by Valeant at all costs, and regardless of the premium offered by Valeant," Tolaro says. The lawsuit echoes recently reported claims that the Allergen board launched a smear campaign against Valeant, in an attempt to hurt the company in the stock market. Tolaro notes that Pyott, the Allergan CEO, met with Valeant shareholders in Canada on Nov. 3, and badmouthed the company to drive down the price of its stock and take the air out of the proposed takeover. "Allergan had never before met with Valeant's shareholders, and the meetings had no discernible purpose other than to injure Valeant and depress its share price in order to attempt to make Valeant's acquisition proposal look less favorable," the complaint states. Alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty of honest service, Tolaro wants the judge to make the Allergan board reconsider offers for the company that are in the best interest of shareholders. In addition to Pyott, directors Deborah Dunsire, Michael Gallagher, Trevor Jones, Louis Lavigne Jr., Peter McDonnell, Karah Parschauer, Timothy Proctor, Russell Ray and Henri Termeer are named as defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Cotchett, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com ALLMAX NUTRITION: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Product Label ---------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Gubala and John Norris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allmax Nutrition, Inc., and HBS International Corp., Canadian Corporations, Case No. 1:14-cv-09299 (N.D. Ill., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants is engaged in an unfair and deceptive business practices, specifically by misrepresenting the nature and quality of Allmax Nutrition Ultra-Premium 6-Protein Blend Hexapro on the Product label. Allmax Nutrition, Inc. is a supplier of bodybuilding and sports nutrition supplements in the United States and Canada. HBS International Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allmax Nutrition, Inc. and distributes Allmax's line of products in the United States and Canada for purchase at a variety of retailers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Gregory W. Jones, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 878-1342 E-mail: www.siprut.com jsiprut@siprut.com gjones@siprut.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 434 West Alexandrine, Suite 101 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com ALCOBRA LTD: Faces "Rahman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Arifur Rahman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Alcobra Ltd., Yaron Daniely, Tomer Berkovitz, and Ehud Gilboa, Case No. 1:14-cv-09203 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Alcobra Ltd. is an emerging pharmaceutical company primarily focused on the development and commercialization of a proprietary drug candidate, MDX, to treat cognitive disorders including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Fragile X Syndrome. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Linkh, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com -and- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310)201-9150 Facsimile: (310)201-9160 AMERICAN RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Astolin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. American Recovery Service Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-cv-06834 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com AMYRIS INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Amyris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court issued an order (based on stipulation of the parties) dismissing a securities class action with prejudice. In May 2013, a securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and its CEO, John G. Melo, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In October 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint, as amended, sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the Company's common stock between April 29, 2011 and February 8, 2012. The complaint alleged securities law violations based on the Company's commercial projections during that period. In December 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In March 2014, the court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint further and, on June 12, 2014, the court issued an order (based on stipulation of the parties) dismissing the action with prejudice. APOLLO GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Seek Interlocutory Review --------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a class action alleging online fraud moved for interlocutory review of certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss rulings. In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions, captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800- Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which is affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68% of Affinion's common stock. In both cases, plaintiffs allege that Trilegiant, aided by its business partners, who include e-merchants and credit card companies, developed a set of business practices intended to create consumer confusion and ultimately defraud consumers into unknowingly paying fees to clubs for unwanted services. Plaintiffs allege that AGM is a proper defendant because of its indirect stock ownership and ability to appoint the majority of Affinion's board. The complaints assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act; the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; and the California Business and Professional Code, and seek, among other things, restitution or disgorgement, injunctive relief, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010 that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants. The court has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases under the caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered that they proceed on the same schedule. On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013. On December 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed another putative class action, captioned Frank v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12- cv-1721), in the District of Connecticut, naming the same defendants and containing allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC. On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On July 24, 2013 the Frank court transferred the case to Judge Bryant, who is presiding over In re: Trilegiant, and on March 28, 2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion to consolidate. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on defendants' motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and Trilegiant on behalf of all defendants, and also granted separate motions to dismiss filed by certain defendants, including AGM. On that same day, the court directed the clerk to terminate AGM as a defendant in the consolidated action. On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for interlocutory review of certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss rulings, not including its order granting AGM's separate dismissal motion. Defendants filed a response on May 23, 2014, and plaintiffs replied on June 5, 2014. APOLLO GLOBAL: Has January 2 Deadline to Respond to Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the deadlines for C.E.C. Entertainment and Apollo Global Management, LLC to respond to the class action complaint are December 29, 2014 and January 2, 2015, respectively. On October 17, 2014, Wiley Wright filed a putative class action against C.E.C. Entertainment ("CEC") and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo") in the Eastern District of New York, captioned Wright v. C.E.C. Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Chuck E. Cheese's, and Apollo Global Management, LLC (14-cv-6110), on behalf of Chuck E. Cheese assistant managers and senior assistant managers (collectively, the "Managers") in the United States. Plaintiff alleges that CEC and Apollo jointly employed the Managers and unlawfully classified them as exempt from the overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, even though the Managers regularly performed non-managerial customer service duties. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class, unpaid overtime and liquidated damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and interest. CEC's and Apollo's deadlines to respond to the complaint are December 29, 2014 and January 2, 2015, respectively. Apollo believes that Plaintiff's claims against it are without merit. For this reason, and because the claims against Apollo are in their early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. APOLLO GLOBAL: Class Action Parties Engaged in Limited Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties have engaged in limited discovery in class action lawsuits. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action, which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14, 2014. The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014. Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement and that Apollo and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages after the tender offer closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties have engaged in limited discovery. No defendant has any obligation to answer or otherwise respond to any of the complaints in the consolidated action until the plaintiffs file or designate an operative complaint. Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the actions, it believes that such actions are without merit. APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties Expect to Enter Into Formal Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that parties to the class actions expect that they will enter into a formal settlement agreement in late November 2014. On September 29, 2014, Athlon Energy Inc. ("Athlon") and Encana Corporation ("Encana") jointly announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 27, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encana ("Merger Sub") would commence a tender offer (the "Offer") to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Athlon common stock. Following completion of the Offer, Merger Sub would be merged with and into Athlon (the "Proposed Transaction"). On October 23, 2014, The City of Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint captioned The City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Reeves, et al., C.A. No. 10277-VCG (the "Cambridge Action") in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming Merger Sub, Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM") and members of Athlon's board of directors as defendants. The Cambridge Action alleges, among other things, that members of Athlon's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the proposed transaction, and that Encana, Merger Sub and AGM aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. On November 3, 2014, the parties to the Cambridge Action and several other similar actions filed in Delaware and Texas state court before the Cambridge Action (none of which named AGM as a defendant (collectively, the "Actions")), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the Actions. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, AGM will not be required to contribute any cash and will be granted full and customary releases. The parties to the Actions expect that they will enter into a formal settlement agreement in late November 2014. The forthcoming settlement agreement will be subject to court approval. For this reason, and because the claims against Apollo are in their early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. AVALON DOWNTOWN: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stacey Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Avalon Downtown, LLC and Anne R. Massullo-Sabella, Case No. 4:14-cv-02553 (N.D. Ohio, November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants own and operate a full service restaurant located in downtown Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Ste. 1325, 815 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 498-9100 Facsimile: (216) 621-1094 E-mail: ryan@winterslawfirm.com BAI BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Antioxidant Products, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dorinda Vassigh and Samantha Lewin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bai Brands LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv- 05127 (N.D. Cal., November 19, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's misleading messaging on the product label of its Bai5 Antioxidant Infusions beverage that it is packed with beneficial antioxidants, when it fact it does not have even a single nutrient recognized or approved for nutrient content claims using the term antioxidant. Bai Brands LLC produces antioxidant infusion beverages for health- conscious consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com apersinger@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Pending Forex Lawsuits in Discovery Phase ----------------------------------------------------------- The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that BNY Mellon has been named as a defendant in several putative class action federal lawsuits filed on various dates in 2011, 2012 and 2014. The complaints, which assert claims including breach of contract and ERISA and securities laws violations, all allege that the prices BNY Mellon charged for standing instruction foreign exchange transactions executed in connection with custody services provided by BNY Mellon were improper. In addition, BNY Mellon has been named as a nominal defendant in several derivative lawsuits filed in 2011 and 2012 in state and federal court in New York. On July 2, 2013, the court in the consolidated federal derivative action dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims. On Oct. 1, 2013, the court in the consolidated state derivative action dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims, and one of the plaintiffs has appealed. All of the pending lawsuits are currently in discovery. To the extent the lawsuits are pending in federal court, they are being coordinated for pre-trial purposes in federal court in New York. BAYER HEALTHCARE: District Court Narrows "Yuncker" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- A New Jersey district court granted in part and denied in part Bayer Healthcare, LLC's motion to dismiss a class action complaint involving Bayer's "Phillips' Colon Health" product. The putative class action was brought by Troy Yuncker and Dino Rikos on behalf of themselves and all individuals who purchased Bayer's over-the-counter Phillips' Colon Health Probiotic + Fiber product and/or Phillips Colon Health Probiotic Caps (collectively, "Phillips' Colon Health"). Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Bayer's representations that Phillips' Colon Health "helps defend against" "constipation, diarrhea, [and] gas and bloating" are false and misleading. Plaintiffs allege violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"), breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. In a Nov. 6, 2014 Opinion available at http://is.gd/lamFoRfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Jose L. Linares: -- granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Count One and dismissed Count One with prejudice; and -- denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four, Five and Six. Count One is the Plaintiffs' NJCPA Claim. Counts Two, Three and Four contain consumer fraud claims under California and Illinois law. Counts Five and Six are common law claims of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment. Judge Linares says to apply the NJCFA to the out-of-state consumers in this case would be to ignore the compensatory interests of Illinois and California. He concludes that the states where the named Plaintiffs purchased Phillips' Colon Health have the most significant relationship to Plaintiffs' consumer fraud claims. The case is IN RE BAYER PHILLIPS COLON HEALTH PROBIOTIC SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3017 (JLL), (D. N.J.). DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, Mediator, represented by DENNIS MICHAEL CAVANAUGH, Esq. -- dcavanaugh@mdmc-law.com -- of MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER LLP. DINO RIKOS and TROY YUNCKER, Plaintiffs, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, Esq. -- CCCarella@carellabyrne.com -- and LINDSEY H. TAYLOR, Esq. -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- of CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO. BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, represented by LORNA A. DOTRO, Esq. -- ldotro@coughlinduffy.com & TIMOTHY IGNATIUS DUFFY, Esq. -- tduffy@coughlinduffy.com -- of COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP. BITCASA INC: Faces Suit Over Ending of "Infinite" Storage Plans --------------------------------------------------------------- Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that what goes in the cloud may not stay in the cloud: Bitcasa, a cloud-storage service, has been sued for ending its unlimited data storage plan. Shawn Romack filed a class action against California-based Bitcasa on Nov. 13, less than a month after the company announced it would end its "Infinite" storage plans. Romack, who claims Bitcasa breached its contract, sought, and received, a temporary restraining order to stop Bitcasa from deleting customers' data. U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted the temporary restraining order, enjoining Bitcasa from deleting or impeding access to cloud data until Nov. 20. "Please remember, however," Alsup wrote on his Nov. 13 order , "that no class has been certified." Romack claims that Bitcasa required Infinite storage customers to either accept a new, more expensive plan by Nov. 15, or to remove all of their data, which would be deleted if customers didn't accept a new plan. "In essence Bitcasa is holding these customers' data for ransom, requiring them to accept costlier and inferior data storage plans from Bitcasa or risk losing their important data," the lawsuit states. Romack claims the approximately 23-day time frame for customers to act is "inadequate and unreasonable." "Such time frame renders it impracticable, and in many cases impossible, for customers to remove their data from Bitcasa's systems by the . . . deadline," the complaint states. Romack says he has 7 to 8 terabytes of data stored on Bitcasa's systems, and that he has been "working feverishly to try to download as much of his data from Bitcasa's system . . . trying to minimize the data he will lose." Romack seeks class certification, restitution and damages for breach of contract, breach of faith, and California Business Code violations. A hearing on the temporary restraining order is set for Nov. 19. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Sobol, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com BRANCH BANKING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act --------------------------------------------------------------- R. Andrew Ketner and Stephen Baker, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Branch Banking and Trust Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00967 (M.D.N.C., November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Branch Banking and Trust Company provides financial services to its customers, including personal banking, insurance, home mortgages, investment services, retirement plans, and wealth advisory services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Brinson, Esq. ROBERSON HAWORTH & REESE, PLLC 300 North Main Street, Suite 300, PO Box 1550 High Point, NC 27261 Telephone: (336) 889-8733 Facsimile: (336) 885-1280 E-mail: bbrinson@rhrlaw.com - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Brittany B. Skemp, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 CINEMARK USA: "De Ponton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosa Sanchez De Ponton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 USC 216(b) v. Cinemark USA, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-62638 (S.D. Fla., November 19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cinemark USA, Inc. is a foreign corporation that owns and operates a chain of movie theatres. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Thomas Brady Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM BRADY, P.A. 800 Brickell Avenue, Penthouse 2 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-7688 Facsimile: (305) 358-4010 E-mail: wbrady@wbradylaw.com CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Leblanc" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Izabella L. Leblanc, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07215 (D.N.J., November 19, 2014), seeks to redress Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Client Services, Inc. is a collection agency with its principal office located at 3451 Harry S. Truman Boulevard, St. Charles, Missouri 63301-4047. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com COCA-COLA CO: Fails to Properly Encrypt Workers' PII, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rogue Coca-Cola Co. employees went on spending sprees with the personal information of more than 70,000 co-workers, a federal class action alleges, reports Andrew Thompson at Courthouse News Service. Shane Enslin filed the complaint November 12, seeking damages under the Drivers Piracy Protection Act for negligence, fraud, conspiracy and other claims. As an 11-year employee of Keystone Coca-Cola Bottling, Enslin says he entrusted the soda giant with his personal identifying and financial information, abbreviated in the complaint as PII. Coke allegedly sent Enslin a letter this past February, alerting him to the fact that his PII was "stored on or accessed from at least one of the 55 laptops stolen sometime between January of 2007 and December of 2013." The breach on the company's largest bottler, Coca-Cola Enterprises, compromised the PII of at least 74,000 current and former Coke employees, according to the complaint. Enslin blames Coca-Cola for failing to properly encrypt such PII, which the thieves used "to wreak havoc on the plaintiff's life." He says the thieves used his bank account to pay for more than $958 worth of Bloomingdale's merchandise, delivered to Staten Island. They also allegedly had more than $825 of Fingerhut merchandise shipped to that Staten Island address, which the thieves tried to make the primary address for all of Enslin's accounts, according to the complaint. Enslin says the thieves "took control of two (2) of Mr. Enslin's Capital One Credit Card accounts and his Best Buy Credit Account," and engaged in a similar scheme with his Macy's card. This summer the thieves shopped in Ireland and got a job with the delivery giant UPS in his name. Meanwhile Coca-Cola has merely offered Enslin free credit monitoring through a third-party. Enslin no longer worked for the company by the time of the breach. He claims his information was still accessible on the machines and were easily accessed on the unencrypted computers. Coca-Cola recovered approximately 55 computers by Dec. 10, 2013, according to the complaint. In addition to various Coke subsidiaries, the complaint names one of the charged thieves, Thomas Rogers III, as a defendant. "On or about June 14, 2014, Mr. Rogers was arrested and charged by the Cobb County Police," the complaint states. "He stands charged with felony and misdemeanor theft by taking." The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald Haviland Jr., Esq. HAVILAND HUGHES 201 S. Maple Way, Suite 110 Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 609-4661 Facsimile: (215) 392-4400 CONDE NAST: Has Agreed to Fork Over $5.8MM to Spike Interns Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Conde Nast has agreed to fork over $5.8 million to spike a class action by interns who complained that they made "a dollar a day, if that." Attorneys for the interns urged a federal judge to endorse the deal in a 25-page memorandum filed on November 13. Lauren Ballinger, who worked at W Magazine, and Matthew Leib, who assisted editorial at The New Yorker, claimed in a July 2013 lawsuit that Conde Nast "relies on a steady stream of interns to perform entry-level work that contributes to its magazines' operations and reduce its labor costs." They led a class of 7,500 interns alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. After the lawyers take their proposed 11 percent cut, amounting to $650,000, the seven-figure deal breaks down to a far smaller nest egg per intern. The payouts range from $700 to $1,900 per intern, depending on the type of internship and whether it included a stipend, according to the memo. Outten & Golden attorney Rachel Bien, representing the interns, called the settlement "fair, reasonable and adequate." The deal will "avoid significant expense and delay, and instead ensure recovery for the class," she said. "Although plaintiffs believe their case is strong, it is subject to risk," Bien's memo states. Part of that risk is because "the Second Circuit has not yet resolved the legal test that applies to interns," the memo notes. "Two district courts in this circuit adopted different tests for determining whether an intern is an employee under the FLSA." The memo notes that these cases are the class actions against Fox Searchlight Pictures filed by "Black Swan" interns, who achieved certification; and another against the Hearst Corp. by their magazine interns, whose case was dismissed. "Two very different outcomes resulted in these cases - in one, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs; in the other, the court denied summary judgment," the memo states. "These very different outcomes demonstrate the uncertainty that the parties face. The proposed settlement alleviates this uncertainty. This factor therefore weighs in favor of preliminary approval." Conde Nast has not returned a request for comment left after business hours on November 14. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Bien, Esq. Juno Turner, Esq. Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com jturner@outtengolden.com wno@outtengolden.com The case is Lauren Ballinger and Matthew Leib v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. d/b/a Conde Nast Publications, Case No. 1:13-cv- 04036-HBP, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes "Thompson" Suit to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled Thompson v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00035493-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02778-CAB-WVG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts class-wide claims for wage theft, failure to pay overtime premium wages, failure to pay all wages due and failure to provide meal breaks, among other things. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 625 Broadway, Suite 635 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com dmara@turleylawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq. David D. Kadue, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: kyoumans@seyfarth.com dkadue@seyfarth.com - and - Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. Emily E. Schroeder, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 333 S. Hope Street, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com eschroeder@seyfarth.com CREATIVE FOOD: "Tantawy" Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Tantawy, et al. v. Creative Food Group HD, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-05062, was transferred from the U.S. 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-09265-JMF to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, stolen tips, payments for laundering uniforms, liquidated damages, interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 612 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 Facsimile: (212) 267-8115 E-mail: rw@rwapc.com The Defendants are represented by: David Brian Feldman, Esq. Shari Ann Alexander, Esq. MOSES & SINGER LLP 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174-1299 Telephone: (212) 554-7800 Facsimile: (212) 554-7700 E-mail: dfeldman@mosessinger.com salexander@mosessinger.com CUYAHOGA, OHIO: Faces "Mulloy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Mulloy, James McClary, and Anthony Church, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Cuyahoga County, Case No. 1:14-cv-02546 (N.D. Ohio, November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Cuyahoga County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC Ste. 201, 4580 Stephen Circle, NW Canton, OH 44718 Telephone: (330) 354-8967 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com DHR INTERNATIONAL: Case Management & Pretrial Order Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton adopts the case management statement of the parties in DHR INTERNATIONAL INC., Plaintiff(s), v. ADAM CHARLSON, Defendant(s). ADAM CHARLSON, Plaintiff(s), v. DHR INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendant(s), NOS. C 14-01899 PJH, C 14-03041 PJH, (N.D. Cal.) except as modified by, among other things, the following pretrial schedule: TRIAL DATE: Monday, June 6, 2016, at 8:30 a.m., Courtroom 3, 3rd Fl. JURY [x] COURT [ ] TRIAL LENGTH: No more than 8 days. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: May 12, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Only one summary judgment motion per party is permitted without leave of court) TO BE HEARD BY: January 13, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF: October 30, 2015. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS (retained and non-retained): 8/28/15; Rebuttal: 9/14/15. EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF: October 30, 2015. DISCOVERY LIMITATIONS: Interrogatories: Requests for Documents: Depositions: Requests for Admissions: DISCOVERY DISPUTES REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE AFTER MOTION IS FILED. LAST DAY TO AMEND PLEADINGS: No later than 90 days before fact discovery cutoff date a motion or a stipulation must be filed so that sufficient time remains to conduct discovery on added claims or parties. Doe defendants must be identified in the motion or stipulation or they will be dismissed. [x] REFERRED TO ADR FOR Private Mediation to be completed within 180 days. A copy of the November 17, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/upqV64from Leagle.com. Adam D Charlson, Plaintiff, represented by: Christopher Robert Le Clerc, Esq. Christopher R. LeClerc, Esq. LECLERC & LECLERC, LLP 235 Montgomery St, Suite 1019 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 800-465-6254 Facsimile: 415-445-9977 DHR International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste Woodard -- jwoodard@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees LP. Carol Hartman, Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste Woodard, Gordon and Rees LP. Christine Abrams, Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste Woodard, Gordon and Rees LP. Geoffrey Hoffman, Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste Woodard, Gordon and Rees LP. Douglas Black, Defendant, represented by Joan Celeste Woodard, Gordon and Rees LP. DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Richards" Suit Over High Electricity Rate --------------------------------------------------------------- Gary W. Richards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Direct Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01724 (D. Conn., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendant engaged in an unfair and deceptive scheme of charging residential consumers an extraordinarily high premium rate for electricity regardless of fluctuations in the underlying market price. Direct Energy Services, LLC provides electricity supply services within the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq. IZARD NOBEL, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6295 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Faces Soffer Suit Over Merger With Siemens -------------------------------------------------------------- Dresser-Rand Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger with Siemens Energy, Inc. was filed on September 24, 2014 on behalf of Dresser- Rand Group Inc. stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The action is captioned Soffer v. Volpe et al., C.A. No. 10165-CB (Del. Ch.). The complaint in the Soffer action alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by engaging in a flawed sale process, agreeing to sell the Company for inadequate consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the Merger Agreement. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the Company, Siemens and Dynamo Acquisition Corporation, the Delaware subsidiary formed by Siemens in connection with the transaction, aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction barring the merger. On October 21, 2014, plaintiffs amended the complaint to allege as additional basis for relief that the directors of the Company engaged in self-dealing because they will benefit from their compensation arrangements and/or the sale of their personal stakes in the Company and that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company on October 9, 2014 fails to provide stockholders with material information about the transaction and/or is materially misleading. Siemens Energy is among the largest global suppliers of custom- engineered rotating equipment solutions for long-life, critical applications in the oil, gas, chemical, petrochemical, process, power generation, military and other industries worldwide. DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Faces Union Suit Over Merger With Siemens ------------------------------------------------------------- Dresser-Rand Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on October 24, 2014, Construction Industry & Laborers Union Local 872 Pension A Trust v. Dresser-Rand Group, Inc., et al, C.A. No. 10285-CB (Del. Ch.) was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. This complaint contains claims and allegations similar to those in the pre- amendment Soffer complaint and seeks similar relief on behalf of the same putative class. The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit. The complaint in the Soffer action challenges the proposed merger with Siemens Energy, Inc. Siemens Energy is among the largest global suppliers of custom- engineered rotating equipment solutions for long-life, critical applications in the oil, gas, chemical, petrochemical, process, power generation, military and other industries worldwide. FEDERAL HOME: Filed Response to Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on the class action complaint against EMC Mortgage Corporation and Bear, Stearns & Co., now known as J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, based on Federal Home Loan Bank's investment in certain private-label MBS trusts. The Company said, "The defendants in the class action complaint previously filed a motion to dismiss our complaint, arguing, among other things, that we lacked standing to pursue the claims and that we had failed to adequately plead our claims. On September 19, 2014, we filed our response to that motion. We cannot predict when the court will issue a ruling." FIT FOODS: Faces "Canizalez" Over Misleading Product Label ---------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Canizalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fit Foods, Ltd., and Fit Foods Distribution, Inc., Canadian corporations, Case No. 3:14-cv-02744 (S.D. Cal., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants is engaged in an unfair and deceptive business practices, specifically by misrepresenting the nature and quality of Mutant Whey Extreme Multi Whey Mega Blend on the Product label. The Defendants are Canadian companies that manufacture and distribute a wide range of healthy lifestyle and sports supplement products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, SBN 174806 AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 434 West Alexandrine #101 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS, LLP 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-1300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8092 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Court Narrows V. Malon's Discovery Requests --------------------------------------------------------------- A Virginia district court agreed with Franklin Financial Corporation's assertion that that discovery requests made by Andrew Malon in a securities class action complaint are overly broad. The case is ANDREW MALON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14CV671 (HEH-RCY) (E.D. Va.). The other Defendants are Franklin Federal Savings Bank, TowneBank, and members of Franklin's Board of Directors -- Richard T. Wheeler, Jr., Hugh T. Harrison II, Warren A. Mackey, Elizabeth W. Robertson, George L. Scott, Richard W. Wiltshire, Jr., and Percy Wootton. In the action, Andrew Malon, a shareholder of Franklin Financial, challenged a proposed transaction wherein TowneBank will acquire all outstanding shares of Franklin in a stock-for-stock transaction. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Defendants violated federal securities law by providing false, misleading, and incomplete information in the Proxy Statement pertaining to the TowneBank Transaction. Presently before the district court is the Plaintiff seeking expedited discovery to prepare for the shareholder vote and an anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. In a Nov. 6, 2014 Memorandum Opinion available at http://is.gd/Vlqmzwfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Robert Young agrees with Defendants that, in their current form, Plaintiff's requests are overly broad and not sufficiently particularized. Nonetheless, while Plaintiff's requests are overly broad, the judge agrees with Plaintiff that some particularized discovery is both necessary and appropriate in contemplation of the upcoming shareholder meeting and motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court, therefore, reduces the scope of expedited discovery to certain classes of documents and finds that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's (PSLRA) particularity element is satisfied. Plaintiff Andrew Malon is represented by Elizabeth Kathleen Tripodi, Esq. -- etripodi@zlk.com & Julia J. Sun, Esq. -- jsun@zlk.com -- of Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Defendants Franklin Financial Corporation, Franklin Federal Savings Bank as well as the Individual Defendants are represented by Jennifer Rasile Everitt, Esq. -- Jeveritt@kilpatricktownsend.com , Hillary Dawn Rightler, Esq. -- Hrightler@townsend.com & Stephen Earl Hudson, Esq. -- Shudson@kilpatrick.com of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. Defendant TowneBank represented by Stephen Matthew Faraci, Esq. -- stephen.faraci@leclairryan.com -- of LeClair Ryan PC. FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces "Shuppert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Shuppert, Larry Vincent, Jonathon Geitgey, and Chris Koss, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-01906 (S.D. Ind., November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work beyond 40 hours per week. Freedom Mortgage Corp. is a for-profit foreign corporation that offers home loans in the Southern District of Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan C. Fox, Esq. FOX WILLIAMS & SINK LLC 8465 Keystone Crossing, Suite 250 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 254-8500 E-mail: rfox@fwslegal.com GECESC ASSOCIATES: Accused of Bias and Sexual Harassment in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea L. Davis v. GECESC Associates LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01065- JRG (E.D. Tex., November 21, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff is a victim of unlawful sexual harassment and discrimination. During her employment with GECESC, Ms. Davis alleges that she was unlawfully sexually harassed to an extreme degree and discriminated against based on her sex. She contends that GECESC paid her less than similarly situated males in the same position doing the same work with the same level of experience, which constitutes unlawful wage discrimination. The Plaintiff represented herself in the lawsuit: Chelsea L. Davis, Esq. CHELSEA DAVIS PC 25 Highland Park Vlg., Suite 100-830 Dallas, TX 75205 Telephone: (469) 4265850 Facsimile: (469) 5330466 E-mail: cdavis@chelseadavispc.com The Defendant is represented by: Donald Colleluori, Esq. FIGARI & DAVENPORT LLP Bank of America Plaza 901 Main St., Suite 3400 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 939-2007 Facsimile: (214) 939-2090 E-mail: don.colleluori@figdav.com GILLETTE COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Battery Leakage --------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Carlson and Jamal Yusuf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Gillette Company and The Proctor & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-14201 (D. Mass., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants concealed and misrepresented material facts concerning potential battery leakage during storage and intended use of their Duracell Batteries. The Gillette Company produces and sells personal care products for men. The Procter & Gamble Company is a manufacturer of product ranges including personal care, household cleaning, laundry detergents, prescription drugs and disposable nappies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: erica@mirabellaLLC.com - and - Richard R. Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP P.A. 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1101 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net - and - Barrett J. Clisby, Esq. BARRETT J. CLISBY, PLLC Box 240, 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1021 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 234-8413 E-mail: bjclisby@gmail.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com vln@lovelacelaw.com - and - Charles Barrett, Esq. CHARLES BARRETT, PC 6518 Highway 100, Suite 210 Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 515-3393 E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 E-mail: TomThrash@sbcglobal.net - and - Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408)369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com - and - Charles J. La Duca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com GOODMAN GLOBAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing in "Kotsur" on Jan. 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kotsur filed a class action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Pennsylvania residents who purchased a Goodman Unit for primarily personal, family or household purposes against defendants Goodman Global, Inc., Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P., and Goodman Company, L.P in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged four counts: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (3) violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Stat Sections 201-1, et seq., and (4) unjust enrichment. Defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The court, sua sponte, considered if there was jurisdiction under CAFA after plaintiff withdrew his objection to federal jurisdiction. The court must consider whether it has jurisdiction even if neither party has raised the issue. The court ordered the parties to complete limited discovery on diversity jurisdiction and to brief the issues relevant to jurisdiction under CAFA. District Judge Norma L. Shapiro, in a memorandum and order entered November 17, 2014, ruled that the court has jurisdiction over this action and the case will not be remanded and may proceed to the substantive issues after determining what, if any, class will be certified. Defendants may file a response to plaintiff's motion for class certification on or before December 15, 2014. Plaintiff may also file a reply in support of his motion for class certification on or before December 29, 2014. A hearing on the class certification motion will be held in Courtroom 10-A on January 13, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., wrote Judge Shapiro in his memorandum and order, copies of which are available at http://is.gd/G1kucI and http://is.gd/sAyPbufrom Leagle.com. The case is ROBERT KOTSUR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOODMAN GLOBAL, INC., GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., and GOODMAN COMPANY, L.P., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1147, (E.D. Penn.) ROBERT KOTSUR, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW SILVER -- asilver@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, ESFAND NAFISI -- enafisi@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, GARY E. MASON -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, JONATHAN SHUB -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS LLP, JONATHAN K. TYCKO -- jtycko@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, LORENZO B. CELLINI -- lcellini@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP & SCOTT A. GEORGE -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS. GOODMAN GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER MCLAUGHLIN, JONES DAY, KIMBERLY A. BROWN, JONES DAY, RICHARD J. BEDELL, JR., JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, SHARYL A. REISMAN, JONES DAY, THEODORE M. GROSSMAN, JONES DAY & JENNIFER L. DELMEDICO, JONES DAY. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER MCLAUGHLIN, JONES DAY, KIMBERLY A. BROWN, JONES DAY, RICHARD J. BEDELL, JR., JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, SHARYL A. REISMAN, JONES DAY, THEODORE M. GROSSMAN, JONES DAY & JENNIFER L. DELMEDICO, JONES DAY. GOODMAN COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER MCLAUGHLIN, JONES DAY, KIMBERLY A. BROWN, JONES DAY, RICHARD J. BEDELL, JR., JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, SHARYL A. REISMAN, JONES DAY, THEODORE M. GROSSMAN, JONES DAY & JENNIFER L. DELMEDICO, JONES DAY. GOOGLE INC: Hourly Staff Not as Favored as Contractors, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that while Fortune Magazine ranked Google the best company to work for this year, a Brooklynite who worked as an hourly employee far from its Silicon Valley headquarters says hourly workers are not as privileged as "independent contractors." Jacob McPherson, 27, says he took a $35-an-hour job in January 2013 as a site merchandiser for the books-and-magazines division of Google Play. Until his termination on New Year's Eve, McPherson worked out of the company's office in the fashionable Chelsea Market. A 15-hour cap on McPherson's hours during his training period doubled to 30 hours roughly four months later, according to the complaint filed November 12. But McPherson says more than half of his employment was filled with more-than-45-hour weeks. He was allegedly fired after complaining about unpaid overtime. McPherson sued Google and the software companies that connect it to freelancers: oDesk Corporation and its successor, Elance-oDesk Inc. The complaint does not estimate how many other Google employees were in McPherson's position, but a confidential employment agreement included as an exhibit shows some of the terms employees like him have signed. The contract warns all "vendors and contractors" that "refusal of a work assignment" and "excessive absenteeism" can result in the "immediate end of [their] assignment or services" at Google. In practice, this meant that McPherson and "others similarly situated were often forced to work more than the maximum allowed hours in order to complete the tasks assigned to them by Google and keep their job," according to the Nov. 7 complaint. "Google had a practice of requiring plaintiff and others similarly situated to decrease the time spent on repeated tasks on a weekly basis," the complaint states. "When Google's requirement became impossible and the time spent on these tasks could not be decreased, plaintiff and others similarly situated were forced to complete the tasks on their own time." After McPherson complained about this policy, his manager replied that "all tasks must be completed without regard to the time," and warned him that he would be replaced if he did not finish them, according to the complaint. "In fact, Google did find a replacement contractor and terminated plaintiff's employment," the complaint states. In October 2013, McPherson says that he learned from a friend within the company that Google Play was "in talks" with another contractor seeking his position. McPherson learned about his termination about a month later, according to the complaint. Google then used McPherson's "contractor" status in an attempt to keep him from collecting unemployment insurance benefits, according to the complaint. "Although defendants disputed plaintiff's eligibility based on their claim that he was an independent contractor, the New York State Department of Labor ultimately determined that plaintiff was an employee for the purposes of unemployment insurance and plaintiff received [Unemployment Insurance Benefits]," the complaint states. McPherson seeks class-action damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, plus injunctive relief for unlawful retaliation. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES 110 State Route 35, 2nd Floor Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 444-3575 GURSTEL CHARGO: Obtains Initial Approval of "Smith" Suit Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joseph E. Bataillon granted preliminary approval of a settlement in GARY D. SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. GURSTEL CHARGO, PA, Defendant, NO. 8:14CV183, (D. Neb.). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), this action is preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the class defined as: All individuals in the State of Nebraska to whom during the period commencing four years prior to the filing of suit, June 17, 2014, through the date of preliminary approval, it sent a letter substantially similar to Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Complaint and whose letter was not returned as undeliverable. There will be a sub-class (the FDCPA sub-class) consisting of Nebraska consumers to whom such letters were sent during the portion of the class period commencing one year prior to the filing of this suit. Plaintiff Gary D. Smith is designated as the class representative and William L. Reinbrecht and Pamela A. Car of the law firm Car & Reinbrecht and O. Randolph Bragg of the law firm Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, Ltd. are designated as counsel for the class. A hearing will be held before the court on March 19, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, located at the Roman L. Hruska Federal Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, NE 68102, to determine all necessary matters concerning the settlement, including: whether the proposed settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided should be finally approved by the court as fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Class Members. The Class Notice will be distributed to the Class beginning on or before December 1, 2014. Any class member who desires to enter an appearance pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) must do so by March 5, 2015. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from (opt out of) the class and the proposed settlement agreement must mail a written request for exclusion to class counsel and counsel for defendant postmarked no later than March 5, 2015. A copy of the Court's November 17, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/hmEnlUfrom Leagle.com. Gary D. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg -- Rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. Gurstel Chargo, PA,, Defendant, represented by Amy L. Van Horne -- Amy.VanHorne@KutakRock.com -- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM. HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Certified Class in False Advertising Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has certified a class action that claims The Hain Celestial Group falsely advertised its Avalon Organics and Jason cosmetics as organic. The case is Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-03082-LB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. HOME DEPOT: Faces Salisbury Bank Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Salisbury Bank and Trust Company, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial institutions v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03722 (N.D. Ga., November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing customers' financial and personal data. The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and construction supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Pitts Carr, Esq. Alex D. Weatherby, Esq. W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES 10 North Parkway Square 4200 Northside Parkway Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 442-9000 Facsimile: (404) 442-9700 E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com aweatherby@wpcarr.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Joseph D. Cohen, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com jcohen@scott-scott.com - and - David R. Scott, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com steti@scott-scott.com IMPAX LABORATORIES: Took $112-Mil. Bribe From Endo, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal class action accuses the maker of a popular pain medication of paying a $100 million bribe to another drug company to delay the release of its generic tablets. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana Endo Health Solutions, its subsidiaries and Impact Laboratories Inc. individually and on behalf of a purported class consisting of anyone who bought Opana tablets after June 2010. The insurance company says Impax took more than $112 million in cash from Endo to keep its generic, extended-release oxymorphone hydrochloride out of the market from June 2010 to January 2013. Endo sells oxymorphone hydrochloride as Opana ER. It used the two and a half year delay to develop a new "crush resistant" formulation of Opana, Blue Cross Blue Shield claims. The anticompetitive scheme by Endo and Impax caused consumers and insurance companies to overpay, the lawsuit alleges. "Endo essentially bribed Impax to stay out of the market for two and a half years to protect Endo's stream of monopoly profits," the complaint states. "Endo literally bought itself freedom from generic competition. Endo and Impax -- competitors -- conspired to allocate the market for Opana ER and its generic equivalents in a manner that gave each company more exclusivity than it was entitled to in order to maximize profits at the expense of purchasers of Opana ER." The scheme began when Endo sued a group of generic manufacturers, including Impax, that wanted to sell generic extended-release oxymorphone hydrochloride. Endo alleged patent infringement. Simply filing the lawsuit stopped the FDA from approving the pill makers' generic drug applications, Blue Cross Blue Shield claims. Next, after ending its suit against Impax, Endo entered into an "exclusion payment agreement" with the generic manufacturer. The agreement included a $102 million payment to Impax in April 2013 and a second payment of "$10 million up front with an obligation to pay an additional $30 million under the guise of a development and co-promotion agreement for Impax's yet-to-be approved product to treat Parkinson's disease," according to the complaint. If not for the plan with Endo, Impax would have released its generic version of Opana more than four years ago, when it received FDA approval for most strength levels of the pill, the lawsuit alleges, and Blue Cross Blue Shield says that would have saved it and others money. "As a direct and proximate result of defendants' illegal conduct, plaintiff and the class members were compelled to pay, and did pay, artificially inflated prices for Opana ER and its generic equivalents," the complaint states. Blue Cross Blue Shield is represented by: Douglas Plymale, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC One Canal Place, Suite 1000 365 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 IMPERVA INC: Lead Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Filed ----------------------------------------------------- Imperva Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Lead plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed in a class action lawsuit. On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Imperva and certain of its officers. The lawsuit purports to bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased Imperva's publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements, purports to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and counsel for the purported class. Lead plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed in October 2014. INNERWORKINGS INC: Files Motion to Dismiss "Van Noppen" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class action entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. In February 2014, following the Company's February 2014 announcement of its intention to restate certain historical financial statements, an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities, relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims and intend to vigorously defend the matter. On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and this motion is currently pending. Any loss that the Company and individual defendants may incur as a result of this matter cannot be estimated. INTEGRITY SOLUTION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Moses Eigner, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Integrity Solution Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06832 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com INTELLIGENDER LLC: 9th Cir. Enters Order on Appeal in Calif. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. INTELLIGENDER, LLC Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 13-56806, the district court approved a Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) settlement between a nationwide certified class of disappointed purchasers of the IntelliGender Prediction Test and defendant IntelliGender, which sold and advertised the Test as an accurate predictor of a fetus's gender using the mother's urine sample. Subsequently, the People of the State of California filed an enforcement action against IntelliGender under the State's Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws, largely based on the same claims asserted in the CAFA class action. The State seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief, and restitution for some individuals who were bound by the CAFA class action settlement. IntelliGender initially moved for an injunction against the State's entire action, which the district court denied. IntelliGender next moved for an injunction against only the State's restitution claims, positing that the State's action undermines the finality of the CAFA settlement, which the court also denied. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order denying the injunction of the State's action writ large, but reverses the district court's order denying the injunction with respect to restitution and enjoins those claims. The Ninth Circuit's Nov. 7, 2014 Opinion, penned by Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, held that: "Because the State's action is designed to vindicate broader governmental interests than the class action, the settlement agreement in the CAFA class action does not create privity sufficient to warrant enjoining the entire action. While we recognize the State's strong interest in protecting its citizens through enforcement actions, we note that CAFA expressly provides that the defendant in a class action must provide notice to the appropriate state official of any proposed settlement, presumably so that the state may comment upon or object to the settlement's approval, if the State believes the terms inadequately protect state citizens. Here, the appropriate State officials were notified, but they chose not to participate in the settlement approval process. The State cannot now obtain a duplicate recovery in the form of restitution on behalf of those individual citizens who are bound by the bargained for restitution in the CAFA class settlement." The Ninth Circuit's Nov. 7, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/AJadgvfrom Leagle.com. Douglas J. Collodel, Esq. -- douglas.collodel@sedgwicklaw.com -- of Sedgwick LLP, in Los Angeles, California; as well as Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Esq. -- paul.riehle@sedgwicklaw.com , Nora Wetzel, Esq. -- nora.wetzel@sedgwicklaw.com -- of Sedgwick LLP, in San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellant Intelligender LLC. Kristine A. Lorenz (argued), San Diego City Attorney's Office, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee State of California. KKR FINANCIAL: Delaware Chancery Court Grants Motions to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- KKR Financial Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss a class action. From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR & Co., and certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR & Co. The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court have been consolidated but an operative complaint has not been filed or designated. The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss. The complaints in these actions allege variously that the members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders; and failing to disclose material information necessary for KFN shareholders to make a fully informed decision about the proposed transaction. The actions also allege variously that KKR & Co., and certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that KKR & Co. is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, and KKR & Co. breached a fiduciary duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into the merger agreement. The relief sought in these actions includes, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and the proposed transaction, rescission, an accounting by defendants, damages and attorneys' fees and costs and other relief. KOLBE & KOLBE: Claims in "Haley" Defective Windows Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Wisconsin district court dismissed claims in a class action complaint accusing Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc., of selling defective windows. The case is MARY HALEY and MICHAEL HALEY, LESLIE BANKS and JAMES HAL BANKS, ANNIE BUINEWICZ and BRIAN BUINEWICZ, TERRANCE McIVER and JEAN ANN McIVER, SUSAN SENYK and CHRISTIAN SENYK, MATTHEW DELLER and RENEE DELLER, GARY SAMUELS and MARIE LOHR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KOLBE & KOLBE MILLWORK CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-99-BBC (W.D. Wi.). In a Nov. 6, 2014 Opinion and Order available at http://is.gd/YlkGEpfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Barbara B. Crabb granted defendant Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co.'s motion to dismiss counts VII through IX of plaintiffs' amended complaint, in which plaintiffs contend that defendant violated various provisions of the Home Improvement Practices Act, Wis. Admin. Code Sec. ATCP 110.02 and 110.04. "I conclude that these regulations do not apply to defendant or other manufacturers that do not install their products in residential or noncommercial property," the judge said. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. manufactures non-vinyl window products, including all-wood and wood and aluminum product lines. Plaintiffs are represented by represented by Dixon R. Gahnz & James A. Olson of Lawton & Cates, S.C.; Joseph J. DePalma -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com , Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com & Susana Cruz Hodge -- scruzhodge@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC; Bonnie J. Prober -- bprober@cuneolaw.com , Charles J. LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com & Daniel M. Cohen -- danielc@cuneolaw.com of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP; Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman; Jill T. Lin, Jonas Palmer Mann, & Michael Andrew of McShane of Audet & Partners, LLP; as well as Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.. United States Fire Insurance Company, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Michael Raymond Gregg -- mrg@merlolaw.com of Merlo Kanofsky & Gregg, Ltd.. Kolbe and Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Gordon Davenport, III -- gdavenport@foley.com , Michael D. Leffel -- mleffel@foley.com , Krista J. Sterken -- ksterken@foley.com & Matthew D. Lee -- mlee@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP; as well as Elizabeth K. Miles -- emiles@dkattorneys.com -- of Davis & Kuelthau s.c. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Intervenor, represented by Beth Ann Berger -- BethAnn.Berger@lewisbrisbois.com & Jeffrey Alan Goldwater -- Jeffrey.Goldwater@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. LA FIESTA: "Henderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Rachel L. Henderson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. La Fiesta Mexican Grill and Sergio Reza, Case No. 1:14-cv-00331 (E.D. Tenn., November 19, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Russell, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 Facsimile: (731) 664-1540 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com LAYERED TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Morris" Suit to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit styled Morris v. Layered Technologies, et al., Case No. 14AE-CV01922, was removed from the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (St. Joseph). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-06128-ODS to the proceeding. The action arises under the Missouri Human Rights Act due to the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment practices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Baldwin, Esq. Eric Vernon, Esq. BALDWIN & VERNON 11 E. Kansas Street Liberty, MO 64068 Telephone: (816) 842-1102 Facsimile: (816) 842-1104 E-mail: kevin@bvalaw.net eric@bvalaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Anthony B. Byergo, Esq. Justin M. Dean, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4520 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: anthony.byergo@ogletreedeakins.com justin.dean@ogletreedeakins.com LEADING EDGE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Mordechai L. Deutsch, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Leading Edge Recovery Solutions LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06815 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com LINKEDIN CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Spamming Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge again thwarted LinkedIn's bid to dismiss a class action by users who claim the professional networking site harvested their email addresses, contact lists and email history to serve its own commercial interests, reports Julie Baker-Dennis at Courthouse News Service. Disgruntled users filed a federal class action against LinkedIn in September 2013, claiming it hacked into their external email accounts and then barraged their contacts with promotional spam. In its defense, LinkedIn suggested that the class members may have been simply "embarrassed" by the repeat invitations they authorized LinkedIn to send to their contacts. The plaintiffs, including several well-educated professionals, countered that "a few cryptic disclosures on a website" do not give LinkedIn the right to "harvest users' email addresses and broadcast users' persona to hundreds of people." In June, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed with LinkedIn's argument that the permission screens amounted to consent, as a reasonable user would have understood that the site was collecting email addresses from the user's external email account. Koh threw LinkedIn another bone this week, finding in a 40-page ruling peppered with screenshots of LinkedIn's sign-up process that the company also "clearly discloses" its intention to invite those email contacts to connect to the user via LinkedIn. But the judge added that the consent granted through permission screens ends with the first invitation and does not necessarily apply to follow-up "reminder emails" -- the purported spam that class members say damaged their professional reputations. "Although the court concludes that plaintiffs have consented to LinkedIn's initial endorsement email, the court finds that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they did not consent to the second and third reminder endorsement emails," Koh wrote. LinkedIn had lobbied for a complete dismissal of class members' second amended complaint filed this past August, and argued in the alternative to dismiss plaintiffs' request for minimum statutory damages. Koh agreed that the request to award each member $750 for economic injury should be dismissed, since the users didn't claim that they had been economically harmed. "Plaintiffs assert that they have in fact alleged 'mental anguish'", Koh wrote. "The court is not convinced. As defendant correctly points out, plaintiffs' allegations of injury under California's right of publicity statute focus solely on economic harm." But LinkedIn's immunity defense under the Communications Decency Act did not fare as well with Koh. "Plaintiffs allege that LinkedIn, without plaintiffs' consent and for the commercial benefit of LinkedIn, sent reminder emails to thousands of recipients making use of plaintiffs' names and likenesses as personalized endorsements for LinkedIn," Koh wrote. "Plaintiffs allege further that LinkedIn was 'solely responsible for the creation and development of each reminder email,' and that each reminder email 'was new, original, and unique content created and developed in whole or in part by LinkedIn.' LinkedIn, plaintiffs say, generated the text, layout, and design of the reminder emails and sent them to hundreds if not thousands of recipients. Because, as plaintiffs allege, LinkedIn sent the reminder emails without Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent, the text and layout of these emails were created by LinkedIn without any input from the user. Significantly, plaintiffs claim that LinkedIn provided no means by which a user could edit or otherwise select the language included in the reminder emails. True authorship of the reminder emails, plaintiffs allege, lay with LinkedIn." Additionally, LinkedIn unilaterally chose to include users' photographs in the second reminder emails, and plaintiffs "have plausibly alleged that LinkedIn was responsible at least 'in part' for 'the creation or development of' the reminder emails" and is not entitled to CDA immunity at this stage in the game, Koh said. Koh also rejected LinkedIn's lengthy First Amendment defense, since the emails essentially functioned as advertising for the company -- with logos and invitations to join -- and therefore commercial speech. "Because plaintiffs have adequately alleged that LinkedIn's reminder emails are not just commercial speech but misleading commercial speech that causes them injury, the First Amendment provides LinkedIn no refuge," Koh wrote. She also rejected LinkedIn's argument that using the plaintiffs' names and photos was incidental and common in the online networking business. "LinkedIn's alleged use of plaintiffs' names and likenesses are critical, not incidental, to defendant's commercial purposes," Koh wrote, noting that even Facebook legendarily admitted that friend recommendations are "the Holy Grail of advertising." Koh gave class members another 30 days to fix deficiencies in their second amended complaint. The case is Paul Perkins, et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 5:13-cv-04303-LHK, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. MAGNUM HUNTER: Intends to Vigorously Defend Plaintiffs' Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two of whom, at that time, also served as directors, and one of whom continues to serve as a director. On April 24, 2013, Horace Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the Company and certain of its officers. Several substantially similar putative class actions were filed in the Southern District of New York and in the Southern District of Texas. All such cases are collectively referred to as the Securities Cases. The cases filed in the Southern District of Texas have since been dismissed. The cases filed in the Southern District of New York were consolidated and have since been dismissed. The plaintiffs in the Securities Cases had filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company made certain false or misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including statements related to the Company's internal and financial controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent registered accounting firm, the Company's characterization of the auditors' position with respect to the dismissal, and other matters identified in the Company's April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended. The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged false statements made regarding these issues throughout the alleged class period, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act based on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the Company's internal controls made in connection with a public offering that Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The consolidated amended complaint demanded that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013. In January 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Cases. On June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Cases and, accordingly, the Securities Cases have now been dismissed. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which the Company intends to vigorously defend. It is possible that additional investor lawsuits could be filed over these events. MARICOPA COUNTY CCD: Faces Class Suit Over Leak of Students Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- A data leak at Maricopa County Community Colleges District affected 2.5 million current and former students, employees and vendors, a class action claims in Maricopa County Court. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Harassing Ecuadorian Worker ------------------------------------------------------------ Pablo Thur De Koos v. Marriott International, Inc. a/k/a Miami Airport Marriott and David Cesario, individually, Case No. 1:14- cv-24434-JEM (S.D. Fla., November 20, 2014) is an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 to redress alleged injury done to the Plaintiff by the Defendants' discriminatory and retaliatory treatment on the basis of his race and national origin (Hispanic and Ecuadorian). Marriott International, Inc. is a profit corporation authorized to conduct business in the state of Florida, in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Company conducts business under the name of Miami Airport Marriott Hotel. David Cesario was the General Manager of the Hotel at the time that the Plaintiff was allegedly discriminated and harassed. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MED REV: Sued in New York for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Hall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Med Rev Recoveries, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01415-LEK- DEP (N.D.N.Y., November 21, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James D. Pacitti, Esq. OFFICE OF JAMES D. PACITTI 7120 Hayvenhunt Avenue, Suite 320 Van Nuys, CA 91406 Telephone: (800) 590-6905 Facsimile: (866) 684-6734 E-mail: james@pacittilawfirm.com MEDTRONIC INC: "Hendrich" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit JIMMY HENDRICH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:14CV01635 AGF, has been remanded to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri, City of St. Louis. The action was originally filed in May 2014 in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri, located in the City of St. Louis, seeking to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by the InFUSETM Bone Graft and LT-CAGETM Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device manufactured and distributed by the Defendants. The action had 93 plaintiffs, 14 of which are Missouri residents. The Defendants sought to move the action to a Missouri district court, asserting that the district court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Two similar lawsuits involving the Infuse device were also removed to the district court by Defendants, Smith, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 4:13-CV-02220-CEJ, and Anders, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-01637-ERW. The Smith and Anders cases also originated in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court, and both cases also involve slightly less than 100 plaintiffs. Prior to their removal, all three cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings. In a Nov. 5, 2014 Memorandum and Opinion available at http://is.gd/4RjwYDfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig finds that because Plaintiffs have not requested a joint trial for the Anders, Smith and Hendrich cases, either explicitly or implicitly, this is not a mass action and does not meet the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA. "This case shall therefore be remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." The Plaintiffs are represented by Eric D. Holland, Esq. -- eholland@allfela.com -- & Randall S. Crompton, Esq. -- eholland@allfela.com of HOLLAND AND GROVES, L.L.C.. Medtronic Inc, Defendant, represented by John Elliot Gibbons, Esq. -- jgibbons@buckleylawllc.com -- & Martin J. Buckley, Esq. -- mbuckley@buckleylawllc.com -- of BUCKLEY AND BUCKLEY, L.L.C. as well as Murray S. Levin, Esq. -- levinm@pepperlaw.com -- of PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew E. Tauber, Esq. -- atauber@mayerbrown.com -- & Daniel L. Ring, Esq. -- dring@mayerbrown.com -- of MAYER BROWN LLP; John Elliot Gibbons, Esq. & Martin J. Buckley, Esq. of BUCKLEY AND BUCKLEY, L.L.C., as well as Murray S. Levin, Esq. & Sean P. Fahey, Esq. of PEPPER HAMILTON LLP. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew E. Tauber, Esq. & Daniel L. Ring, Esq. of MAYER BROWN LLP; Martin J. Buckley, Esq. of BUCKLEY AND BUCKLEY, L.L.C.; as well as Sean P. Fahey, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP. MISO RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gabino Jimenez Macareno, Felipe Reynoso, Reyes Reynoso, Hector Galvez Jimenez, Pedro Ramos Guerrero, and Lino Galvez Jimenez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Miso Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Souen Soho, Hijiki Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Souen 13, Yamaguchi LLC, "John Doe" As Executor/Administrator of The Estate of Masaaki Yamaguchi, Miyako Ikeda, Katzu "Saito," and Choko "Doe,", Case No. 1:14-cv-09194 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate restaurants throughout New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com nmelito@fslawfirm.com NATURE'S BOUNTY: Court Dismissed "Mazzeo" Marketing Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A Florida man failed to prove Nature's Bounty lied when it said its "Flush Free Niacin" promotes heart health, reports Caroline Sparks at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Anthony Mazzeo filed a class action against the Nature's Bounty on March 5, 2014, claiming the supplement company makes a number of false and misleading claims in order to deceive otherwise reasonable consumers. The lawsuit focused on one product in particular, "Flush Free Niacin," and Nature's Bounty claim that it "promotes heart health." The product is a derivative form of Niacin -- Niacin being a commonly prescribed treatment for cardiovascular disease. Nature's Bounty says what makes its product distinctive is that it does not result in the flushing of the skin, a common side effect of taking Niacin. Despite its name, however, Flush Free Niacin contains no Niacin, but is instead a form of the vitamin B3. Mazzeo claimed that distinction rendered the health-related claims of Nature's Bounty irrelevant. He said the pills do not promote heart health, that the advertising is therefore harmful and misrepresentative, and that he and the class were entitled to relief under the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act. U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom disagreed, citing several reasons why she was dismissing the lawsuit. To begin with, she said, Mazzeo purchased the supplement at a third-party realtor (Walgreens), and therefore it is not covered by an express warranty between the parties. Bloom also said the plaintiff was unable to prove his negligence claim, because to make that argument, the complaint must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." The judge also took issue with the three studies Mazzeo cited in his complaint to proved the allege ineffectiveness of the supplement. Bloom said the three sources were unreliable and/or biased because one was written by a Nature's Bounty contributor, while the two others were written by doctors regarding specific cases. Finally, she said, Nature's Bounty dietary supplements, all have a disclaimer on their bottles which states "not intended to cure or prevent any diseases". This statement protects the company from complaints such as the one brought by Mazzeo, Bloom said. The case is Anthony Mazzeo v. Nature's Bounty, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-60580-BB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Ephraim Steinwuzel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:14- cv-06833 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2014) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Securities Suit Tossed Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick entered an order and opinion in In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions Securities Litigation, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01800-JWS, (D. Ariz.) on November 17, 2014. In this action, defendants Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., Richard J. Heckmann, Mark D. Johnsrud, Jay Parkinson, W. Christopher Chisholm, and Charles R. Gordon moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs maintained that the complaint is sufficient, but requested leave to amend if the court holds otherwise. According to Judge Sedwick's ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/lDwhudfrom Leagle.com, the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file a properly supported motion to amend provided it is filed no more than 21 days from the date of this order. If a timely motion to amend is not filed, this case will be closed. However, failure to file a timely motion to amend will not preclude plaintiffs from filing a new action based on a sufficient complaint more than 21 days from the date of this order, Judge Sedwick added. Jewyl A Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy James Christian, Tiffany & Bosco PA & Richard Glenn Himelrick, Tiffany & Bosco PA. Chad Monroe, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy C Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Francis M Gregorek -- gregorek@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Marisa C Livesay -- livesay@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Patricia Nicole Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Rachele R. Rickert -- rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Gregory Mark Nespole -- nespole@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. Page Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Glenn Himelrick -- rgh@tblaw.com -- Tiffany & Bosco PA. Alan G Stevens, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Glenn Himelrick, Tiffany & Bosco PA. Maria L Castro, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jesse S Johnson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Dessaules Law Group, Rachel W Maron, Dessaules Law Group, Stephen R Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Elizabeth A Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Patricia Nicole Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC. Robert W Karrasch, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jesse S Johnson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Dessaules Law Group, Rachel W Maron, Dessaules Law Group, Stephen R Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Elizabeth A Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Patricia Nicole Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC. Ralph E Brownfield, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Reise, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jesse S Johnson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonathan Adam Dessaules, Dessaules Law Group, Rachel W Maron, Dessaules Law Group, Stephen R Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Elizabeth A Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Nuverra Environmental Solutions Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael McQuaid -- brian.mcquaid@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Kerryn Leigh Holman -- kerryn.holman@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Joseph C Weinstein -- joe.weinstein@squirepb.com -- Squire Sanders Boggs (US) LLP. Richard J Heckmann, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael McQuaid, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. Mark D Johnsrud, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael McQuaid, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. Jay Parkinson, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael McQuaid, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. W Christopher Chisholm, Defendant, represented by Brian Michael McQuaid, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph C Weinstein, Squire Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. Charles R Gordon, Defendant, represented by Joseph C Weinstein, Squire Sanders Boggs (US) LLP & Kerryn Leigh Holman, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. OMEGA FLEX: "Schoelwer" Plaintiff Refiled Case in May 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------- Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that two putative class action cases have been filed against the Company; one in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida titled Hall v. Omega Flex, Inc. and one in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio titled Schoelwer v. Omega Flex, Inc. In both cases, the lead plaintiffs claimed that they are exposed to an increased likelihood of harm if one of the plaintiffs' houses that contain TracPipe CSST is struck by lightning, that could damage the CSST causing a release of fuel gas in the house and causing a fire. However, none of the lead plaintiffs have suffered any actual harm. In January 2014, the judge in the Hall case granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims due primarily to a lack of jurisdiction because there is no actual case or controversy posed by these claims. The plaintiff in Schoelwer voluntarily dismissed her claims in January 2014, but refiled the case in May 2014 alleging purely economic damages (i.e., no personal injury or property damage). The Company does not believe that the Schoelwer Claim has any legal merit, and is therefore vigorously defending that Claim. Omega Flex is a manufacturer of flexible metal hose, which is used in a variety of applications to carry gases and liquids within their particular applications. PALM WEST: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Bravo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Palm West Corp., just one more restaurant corp., Palm Restaurant Inc., Palm NY Downtown, LLC, Palm Management Corp., "XYZ Corp." d/b/a The Palm Bar & Grill, Walter Ganzi, Jr., and Bruce Bozzi, Sr., Case No. 1:14-cv-09193 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Palm Restaurants throughout New York, The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com nmelito@fslawfirm.com PARADISE MANOR: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Sonia Tolentino, Elvira Malapit, Concepcion Cabato, Agustina Duran, Leticia Leonardo Villaspir, and Melinda Menor v. Lynda G. Miguel and David R. Miguel, individually and together dba Paradise Manor, Case No. 5:14-cv-05151 (N.D. Cal., November 20, 2014) is an action for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and associated violations of the California Labor Code. The Defendants jointly own and operate the business known as Paradise Manor, which is a collection of four assisted living facilities. Three of these facilities are in Cupertino, and one is in San Jose, California. The Defendants provide care services for the elderly. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tomas E. Margain, Esq. Huy Tran, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP 84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 790 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 317-1100 Facsimile: (408) 351-0105 E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.com Huy@JAWLawGroup.com PERFORMANCE FOOD: Removes "Harris" Suit to Florida District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Harris v. Performance Food Group, Inc., Case No. 14-CA-010761, was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsbourough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-02913-SDM-EAJ to the proceeding. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Matthew K. Fenton, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com mfenton@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 100 S Ashley Dr., Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 513-3218 Facsimile: (813) 512-3211 E-mail: jay.lechner@jacksonlewis.com - and - Keith L. Hammond, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 246-8440 Facsimile: (407) 246-8454 E-mail: hammondk@jacksonlewis.com PRO-MARK CONTRACTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- James Terry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pro-Mark Contracting, LLC d/b/a Professional Markings, and Ryan Kinley, Case No. 1:14-cv-02542 (N.D. Ohio, November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Pro-Mark Contracting, LLC provides line painting and striping services throughout Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 17410 Dorchester Cleveland, OH 44119 Telephone: (440) 498-9100 E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Suits Over Flushable Butt Wipes Continue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Procter & Gamble, Costco and Kimberly-Clark cannot flush a pair of proposed class actions accusing them of selling commode-clogging, flushable wipes, reports Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling entered on November 14. Attorneys for the companies asked U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein to dismiss the complaints, or at least deny plaintiffs' class action certification request. He denied both. "I'm not going down the class certification road," he said, but gave attorneys 60 days to plead their cases on the issue. D. Joseph Kurtz filed his proposed federal class action against Kimberly-Clark and Costco in Brooklyn this past February. Anthony Belfiore named Procter & Gamble in the class action he filed in Nassau County Supreme Court in May. That case was removed to Brooklyn in July. "Because flushable wipes do not disintegrate immediately upon flushing, like toilet paper, they cause serious problems," Kuntz said in his lawsuit. Instead, the wipes allegedly clogged toilets and pipes, and flooded people's homes. "The class would not have purchased the flushable wipes if they knew that flushing [them] would cause the pipes to become clogged in sewer or septic systems," the complaint states. Attorneys for the companies called the complaints "fundamentally flawed," and urged the judge to deny certification because it would encourage plaintiffs to lean on them as they continue to "try the cases until they get a win." PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT: "Szczurek" FDCPA Case Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- In JOSEPH SZCZUREK, v. PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a FINANCIAL RECOVERIES, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-4790, (E.D. Penn.), Professional Medical filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Mr. Szczurek brought his action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., based on the wording of several collection letters sent to him beginning on June 17, 2014. Plaintiff also made class action allegations. In his memorandum dated November 17, 2014, District Judge Stewart Dalzell held that "[t]here are no disputed issues of material fact. The question of whether the least sophisticated debtor would be confused or misled by a debt collector's notice is a question of law for us to decide. The least sophisticated debtor, reading the entire notice he is sent, would not be confused or misled by that one sentence in defendant's letter, nor would that one sentence so overshadow the validation notice as to render the defendant's collection practices or communications unfair or unconscionable. Defendant is entitled as a matter of law to judgment on the pleadings, and we will dismiss plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety." A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/niRcs1from Leagle.com. JOSEPH SZCZUREK, Plaintiff, represented by ARKADY ERIC RAYZ, KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC & GERALD D. WELLS, III -- gwells@cwg-law.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP. PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C. & JENNIFER TATUM ROOT -- jroot@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS. PROSUPPS USA: Accused of Wrongful Labeling of ProSupps PS Whey -------------------------------------------------------------- Julian Mena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ProSupps USA, LLC, a Texas corporation, Case No. 3:14- cv-02748 (S.D. Cal., November 19, 2014), engaged in an unfair and deceptive business practices, specifically by misrepresenting the nature and quality of ProSupps PS Whey on the Product label. ProSupps USA, LLC is a pharmaceutical preparation company that specializes in dietary supplements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, California 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111; Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 434 West Alexandrine #101 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS, LLP 1515 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-1300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8092 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com QR ENERGY: Class Suit Over Breitburn Merger at Preliminary Stage ---------------------------------------------------------------- QR Energy, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class action lawsuit over the merger with Breitburn Energy Partners LP is at a preliminary stage. Following the July 24, 2014 announcement that the Partnership and Breitburn Energy Partners LP had entered into a definitive merger agreement, purported unitholders of the Partnership filed putative class action lawsuits, on behalf of the common unitholders of the Partnership, asserting claims challenging the Merger. Four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and were consolidated under the caption In re QR Energy LP Unitholder Litigation, No. 4:14-cv-02195 (the "Consolidated Unitholder Action"). Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action bring claims against the Partnership, our general partner, the members of our general partner's board of directors, Breitburn, Breitburn GP and Merger Sub. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action each allege that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and independence owed to the Partnership's unitholders by allegedly approving the Merger Agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair process. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action specifically allege that the director defendants failed to maximize the value of the Partnership and took steps to avoid competitive bidding, failed to properly value the Partnership, acted in bad faith and for improper motives, and ignored or failed to protect against numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the Merger. The plaintiffs further allege that Breitburn, Breitburn GP and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the director defendants. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action further allege that the named defendants violated Section 14(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by disseminating a false and materially misleading proxy statement in connection with the Merger. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Unitholder Action seek, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger, rescission in the event the Merger is consummated, an order directing defendants to account to plaintiffs and other members of the putative class for all damages caused by their alleged breaches, and an award of costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. RADDATZ LAW: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lipscomb" Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Natasha Lipscomb, Kimberly McLaughlin, Margaret O'Brien, and Felicia Pate, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Raddatz Law Firm, PLLC, Mark R. Raddatz, Esq., and Edward L. Pugh II, Esq., Case No. 1:14-cv-01958 (D.D.C., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendants use unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Raddatz Law Firm, PLLC is a law firm in Washington, District of Columbia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Elizabeth Borja, Esq. WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 719-7000 Facsimile: (202) 719-7049 E-mail: MBorja@wileyrein.com - and - Chinh Q. Le, Esq. Heather M. Latino, Esq. LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1331 H. Street, N.W., Suite 350 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 628-1161 E-mail: cle@legalaiddc.org hlatino@legalaiddc.org RANCHO CORDOVA: Dec. 15 Status Conference Set in "B.O.L.T." Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. has continued to December 15, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., the status conference (Pretrial Scheduling) set in the lawsuit B.O.L.T., an association of motorcycle riders, brought against the City of Rancho Cordova, et al. The status conference was previously set for November 10, 2014. The judge found that the parties' Joint Status Report (JSR) filed October 27, 2014, revealed that the case is not ready to be scheduled. Although this is a putative class action, Plaintiffs do not address in the JSR when they will seek class certification. The judge directs that a further joint status report shall be filed no later than 14 days prior to the newly scheduled Status Conference, in which the parties shall propose a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' proposed motion for class certification and address whether the action should otherwise be scheduled pending decision on that motion. In the event the parties opine the matter should be scheduled, they shall address in the further joint status report their proposals for such scheduling in accordance with Local Rule 240. Plaintiffs shall also address in the joint status report when they will seek leave to file the First Amended and Supplemental Complaint referenced in the JSR. The case is B.O.L.T., an unincorporated association of motorcycle riders and enthusiasts; MARK TEMPLE, an individual; NOREEN McNULTY, an individual; WARREN PEARL, an individual; LYLE DUVAUCHELLE, an individual; GLENN OSBORN, an individual; JEFFREY RABE, an individual; DAVID ZALITSKIY, an individual; WILLIAM LANGHORNE, an individual; THOMAS BELL, an individual; ROBERT BALTHORPE II, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, a political subdivision of the state of California; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a political subdivision of the state of California; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT, an independent legal agency of the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA; SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL GOOLD, in his official capacity as the Chief of Police of the CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE TRAFFIC SERGEANT G. LANE, in his individual and official capacity as Supervisor of the Traffic Division; SCOTT R. JONES, in his official capacity as the SHERIFF of the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER S. CARRDOZZO (badge number 480); RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER M. JAMES (badge number 507); RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE OFFICER S. PADGETT (badge number 1174), Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-01588-GEB-DAD, (E.D. Cal.). A copy of the Nov. 5, 2014 Order Continuing the Status Conference is available at http://is.gd/IIB4Qofrom Leagle.com. B.O.L.T. and the Individual Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel M. Karalash, Strategic Law Command & Gary William Gorski -- usrugby@gmail.com -- of the Law Offices of Gary W. Gorski. City of Rancho Cordova and the other Defendants are represented by Terence John Cassidy -- tcassidy@porterscott.com -- of Porter Scott, APC. REMAX INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Parlavecchio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Remax, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07288-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., November 22, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com RICK'S CABARET: Strippers Get $10.8MM Over Dance Dollars Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- On their way to trial in a minimum-wage dispute, Rick's Cabaret strippers will have $10.8 million in their G-strings before their trial even starts, thanks to a November 14 ruling that endorses their expert witness and their view on "Dance Dollars," according to Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service. Sabrina Hart and Reka Furedi represent more than 1,900 current and former dancers suing the Midtown Manhattan strip club since 2009. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer took the club's corporate owners -- Rick's Cabaret International, RCI Entertainment (New York) and Peregrine Enterprises -- to task last year for wiggling out of their minimum-wage obligations under state and federal labor law. That ruling quoted Rick's President Eric Langan as saying: "without the girls, we're just selling overpriced beers at a sports bar with bad TVs." Engelmayer gave the class their back minimum wages, and much more, in a November 14 ruling that says the bosses stiffed them on their hard-earned tips paid with "Dance Dollars," which customers buy when they want to use a credit card instead of cash. A customer has to swipe $24 on a card to receive a $20 voucher, but that translates to just $18 for the dancer when she cashes out. Engelmayer ruled that this misleads the customers about where their tips are going. "A reasonable customer paying that dancer $20 (or more) in cash would have expected, accurately, that the dancer would keep the entire amount," he wrote (parentheses in original). "There is no sound reason to conclude that a customer who chose to pay in Dance Dollars would have viewed these payments as any less a gratuity to be retained by the dancers." Although Dance Dollars have a disclaimer printed on them stating they are "not valid for gratuities," Engelmayer doubted that "a customer in the sybaritic setting of an exotic nightclub would choose or have the focus to read (let alone absorb) this disclaimer." ("Sybaritic," or pleasure-seeking, derives from the ancient Greek city of Siberis, now located in Italy, renowned for its hedonistic inhabitants.) Engelmayer also noted that the prose of the disclaimer is "far from clear." "A reasonable customer, mindful that the Dance Dollar functioned as an alternative to paying the dancers in cash, could reasonably conclude that the disclaimer meant only that a Dance Dollar was not valid for use to pay gratuity for drinks or other items purchased in the club," the 51-page opinion states. Engelmayer's ruling additionally green-lights the esteemed economist whom the strippers have tapped to testify on their behalf. David Crawford, a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's prestigious Wharton School of Business, wants to bring his 35-plus years of experience in litigation to present his modeling of 137,880 "Clubtrax" records. The economist's report on this data is "evenhanded, reasonable, and intellectually rigorous," Engelmayer found. Rick's complicated Crawford's work by keeping lousy time records, the court found. "Had defendants' time records been complete, the task, in fact, would have been wholly mechanistic," Engelmayer wrote. "The gaps in the records, however, called upon Dr. Crawford to exercise judgment as to what reliable proxies would be for the missing data (e.g., log-out times). The issue for the court is whether Dr. Crawford's methodology to fill these lacunae is reliable. It is." Granting the women partial summary judgment, Engelmeyer cited that data in awarding them $10,866,035. The sum is roughly $8 million less than the strippers sought. Meanwhile, the judge promised to set a trial date over the remaining damages "shortly." A lawyer for Rick's Cabaret declined to comment, and the lawyers for the women did not immediately return a request for comment. The case is Sabrina Hart and Reka Furedi v. Rick's Cabaret International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-03043-PAE-RLE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. ROUSE'S ENTERPRISES: Class Cert. Denial in "Ticknor" Case Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three plaintiffs in ROBERT TICKNOR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROUSE'S ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Louisiana Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-30550 filed a motion to certify the case as a class action against a grocery store chain for alleged violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The district court denied certification on predominance and superiority grounds. The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, on November 18, 2014, affirmed the ruling the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying certification on the basis of predominance and superiority. A copy of the Fifth Circuit's opinion is available at http://is.gd/MgnV2Hfrom Leagle.com. RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Kendy Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:14-cv- 07268-KM-MAH (D.N.J., November 21, 2014) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net S. KATZMAN PRODUCE: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "McMahon" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan McMahon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S. Katzman Produce, Inc. and Stephen Katzman, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-09188 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants are engaged in the business of buying and selling wholesale quantities of produce in interstate commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Avrohom Y. Gefen, Esq. VISHNICK MCGOVERN MILIZIO LLP 3000 Marcus Avenue Lake Success, NY 11042 Telephone: (516) 437-4385 Facsimile: (516) 437-4395 E-mail: agefen@vmmlegal.com SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jorgie Franks, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-02838-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., November 13, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed Class are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendant for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay. Ms. Franks worked for Samsung as a non-exempt Field Sales Manager from January 2013 until October 2014. Samsung is a Delaware Limited Liability Company headquartered in Richardson, Texas. Samsung researches, develops and markets a variety of personal and business communications products throughout North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. Amanda E. Kayfus, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com akayfus@forthepeople.com SCHUFF INT'L: Faces Merger Class Suit in Delaware Chancery Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arlen Diercks, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Schuff International Inc., Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, James Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, and HC2 Holdings, Inc., Case No. 10359- VCL (Del. Ch. Ct., November 17, 2014) accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with HC2's acquisition of all the outstanding stock of Schuff. Schuff is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. Schuff operates as a steel fabrication and erection contractor primarily in the United States. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Some of the Individual Defendants are also directors and officers of HC2. HC2 is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. HC2 operates as a holding company of operating subsidiaries primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom. HC2 has been, at all relevant times, the majority and controlling stockholder of Schuff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com - and - Kent A. Bronson, Esq. Arvind Khurana, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 504-8054 E-mail: kbronson@milberg.com akhurana@milberg.com SERVICE SOURCE: Accused of Exaggerating Financial Assets -------------------------------------------------------- In a merger announcement, Service Source and Scout Analytics exaggerated their financial assets by a factor of 700, a class action claims in California Federal Court. SIMPLICITY BANCORP: Faces Class Action Relating to Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Simplicity Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Stephen Bushansky filed on October 10, 2014, a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California against the Company, the directors of the Company and HomeStreet. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all of the Company's public stockholders, excluding the directors of the Company. The complaint alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders by failing to take adequate measures to ensure that the interests of Simplicity's stockholders are properly protected and by conducting a merger process that prevents competitive bidding. The complaint further alleges that HomeStreet aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's stockholders and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction. The Company believes that the lawsuit is meritless and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Defective Airbags --------------------------------------------------------------- Jann Holland and Russ Holland, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:14-cv-03487 (W.D. Mo., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory W. Aleshire, Esq. ALESHIRE ROBB, P.C. 2847 Ingram Mill Rd, Suite A-102 Springfield, MO 65804 Telephone: (417) 869-3737 Facsimile: (417) 869-5678 E-mail: info@aleshirerobb.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Vukadinovic" Suit Over Airbag Defects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mickey Vukadinovic, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06648 (E.D. Pa., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market St Ste 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com TEMPOSITIONS INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Liotta v. Tempositions, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09274 (S.D.N.Y., November 21, 2014) seeks vindication for the Defendant's alleged blatant violations of the Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the anti-gender discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Tempositions is an active New York domestic business corporation headquartered in New York City. Tempositions is a privately owned full service staffing agency offering temporary, contract temp-to- hire, and direct hire services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cherice P. Vanderhall, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: cpv@employmentlawyernewyork.com atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com TEMPUR-SEALY INT'L: Court Enters Discovery Order in "Todd" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In ALVIN TODD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-04984-JST, (N.D. Cal.), before the Court is a Joint Discovery Letter Brief, filed on November 10, 2014, wherein the parties seek the Court's intervention to resolve discovery disputes relating to: (1) production of historical versions of Defendants' website and social media pages; (2) production of contact information of potential class members; (3) the time frame of responsive documents; and (4) delays in Defendants' production of documents. Plaintiffs' initial Complaint, filed on October 25, 2013, and operative Second Amended Complaint, filed on August 29, 2014, allege misrepresentations and omissions by Defendants Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC that their mattresses and pillows were "formaldehyde free," "free of harmful [volatile organic compounds (VOCs)]," had only a "slight odor" that would last a "few days," and were "hypoallergenic." The Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order in this case on September 16, 2014. The parties represent that they have attempted to resolve all discovery disputes without the Court's intervention, but that they are unable to resolve these remaining issues. On November 17, 2014, District Judge Jon S. Tigar issued an order directing Defendants to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs' website and social media requests that are in their possession, custody, or exclusive control, regardless of whether they are publicly available. Defendants must produce contact information of potential class members who made relevant purchases and/or registered their warranties since January 1, 2007. Production of documents that Defendants have agreed to provide, including "(i) organizational charts; (ii) communications related to VOCs, allergens, formaldehyde, hypoallergenic [materials], odor, actual or suspected allergic reactions, off-gassing; (iii) communications with Carmichael Lynch Spong, Blackstone Group and Stevenson Group; and (iv) a summary/chart of concerns and complaints by consumers," must be limited to documents dating from January 1, 2007. Defendants must produce responsive documents within seven days of the date of the order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/sI69Jhfrom Leagle.com. Alvin Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Brian Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Robbie Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Thomas Comiskey, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Toni Kibbee, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Tina White, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Johnny Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Keith Hawkins, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Patricia Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Alan Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Sara Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Jerry Kucharski, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Julie Davidoff, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Ericka Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Kurt Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Melody Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Diane Kucharski, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Tracey Palmer, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C. Tempur-Sealy International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Lewis Renfro, Call & Jensen, Mark Lemar Eisenhut, Call & Jensen, Matthew Ryan Orr, Call & Jensen, Daniel Jay Gerber, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., Darren McCartney, Rumberger Kirk Caldwell & Douglas Bruce Brown, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. Tempur-Sealy International, Inc., formerly doing business as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samantha Crawford Duke, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron Lewis Renfro, Call & Jensen, Mark Lemar Eisenhut, Call & Jensen, Matthew Ryan Orr, Call & Jensen, Daniel Jay Gerber, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., Darren McCartney, Rumberger Kirk Caldwell, Douglas Bruce Brown, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. & Samantha Crawford Duke, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell. TESLA MOTORS: Trial Court Dismissed Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Tesla Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla and CEO Elon Musk, dismissed a class action complaint with prejudice, and indicated that a formal written order will be forthcoming. In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint, made claims against Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk made false and/or misleading representations and omissions, including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013 and November 17, 2013. On September 26, 2014, the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and indicated that a formal written order will be forthcoming. Tesla Motors designs, develops, manufactures and sells high- performance fully electric vehicles and advanced electric vehicle powertrain components. TGI FRIDAYS: Removes "Grace" Suit to New Jersey District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Grace v. T.G.I. Fridays, Inc., et al., Case No. BUR L 2286 14, was removed from the Burlington County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07233-RBK-AMD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley Glenn Hanna, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SANDER D. FRIEDMAN, LLC 125 North Route 73 West Berlin, NJ 08091 Telephone: (856) 988-7777 E-mail: wgh@sanderfriedmanlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew S. Schultz, Esq. LECLAIR RYAN One Riverfront Plaza 1037 Raymond Boulevard, 16th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 491-3600 E-mail: matthew.schultz@leclairryan.com THREE TWENTY FIVE: Faces "Xenos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Anastasios Xenos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Three Twenty Five Restaurant Corp., d/b/a Dafni Greek Taverna, and George Andriotis, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-09205 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants own and operate Dafni Greek Taverna restaurant located at 325 W. 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory N. Filosa, Esq. FILOSA LAW FIRM, PLLC 111 John Street, Suite 2510 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212)256-1780 E-mail: gfilosa@filosalaw.com TREE.COM INC: Expects Administration of Settlement in 4th Quarter ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tree.com Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company expects administration of the settlement in the case, Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.), to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2014. On May 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Home Loan Center, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who, between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007, obtained option ARM loans through HLC on their primary residences located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification, but have filed a total of eight complaints in connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. The plaintiffs filed the eighth complaint (a "Second Amended Complaint") in Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with each of the seven previous versions of plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was remanded to superior court. During 2013, the parties agreed to a $450,000 settlement, which was approved in 2013. A nominal payment into the settlement fund was made in late 2013. The Company expects administration of the settlement to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2014. In July 2014, the settlement fund was fully funded. The impact of the settlement was not material. TREE.COM INC: "Dijkstra" Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Tree.com Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Plaintiffs in the case Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV), filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. On November 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. On February 26, 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June 2014. In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the amount of $2.8 million. A reserve of $2.8 million has been established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2014, of which some or all may be covered by insurance. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August 2014 and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Requests in "O'Connor" Suit Ruled on ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, Defendant, Case No. C-13-03826 (EMC) DMR (N.D. Cal.), a California district court entered an order on joint discovery letter. Plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, David Khan, Matthew Manahan, Wilson Rolle, Jr., and William Anderson sought to represent a class of drivers who provide passenger car service in California for customers who hail rides using Uber Technologies Inc.'s mobile phone application. Plaintiffs allege that Uber misclassifies drivers as independent contractors and forces drivers to bear the expenses of their employment, including vehicle expenses and gas. They also allege that Uber discourages passengers from tipping drivers by advertising that the fare includes a gratuity, but that Uber does not pay drivers the full amount of the gratuity built into the fare. In a joint discovery letter, Plaintiffs sought to compel further responses to 15 requests for production (RFPs), broken down into four categories of documents. Uber also sought an order compelling Plaintiffs to provide further documents in response to its RFPs on the grounds that they have not produced all responsive documents in their "possession, custody, or control." In a Nov. 6, 2014, Order available at http://is.gd/tESJGO avialable at Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu ruled that: -- Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents is granted in part and denied in part. Uber was to produce additional documents discussed by November 10, 2014; and -- Uber's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs were to serve supplemental responses to Uber's RFPs and produce documents by November 10, 2014. Douglas O'Connor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Weber, Esq. -- Bweber@llrlaw.com of Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C.; Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal Services; Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss- Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.. Thomas Colopy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal Services, Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.. Matthew Manahan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal Services & Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.. Wilson Rolle, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss- Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.. William Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss- Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com & Caitlin Victoria May -- cmay@morganlewis.com ; Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP; John C. Fish, Jr. -- jfish@littler.com of Littler Mendelson, PC; Stephen A. Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Stephen Luther Taeusch -- staeusch@morganlewis.com of Morgan Lewis & Bockius. Travis Kalanick, Defendant, represented by Robert Jon Hendricks, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC & Stephen Luther Taeusch, Morgan Lewis & Bockius. Ryan Graves, Defendant, represented by Robert Jon Hendricks, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC & Stephen Luther Taeusch, Morgan Lewis & Bockius. Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry -- mcherry@cherry-law.com -- of Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC. US AGRICULTURE DEP'T: Choctaw Nation Can't Share in Bias Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- A pair of Native American groups will have no say in how $380 million left over from a discrimination lawsuit will be distributed, reports Philip Janquart at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Several class action lawsuits were filed by African American, Native American, Latino and female farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture between 1997 and 2000. They allege years of discriminatory practices that denied them the same benefits as white farmers. The cases all resulted in settlement agreements. After a decade of litigation, the Native American class was awarded a $680 million settlement. Over $380 million remained after disbursements where made, the class making a motion to amend the settlement to distribute the funds to designated Cy Pres beneficiaries that provided agricultural, business assistance or advocacy services to Native American farmers. Two Native American tribes, however, sought to intervene in the Cy Pres distribution after a 2013 status report revealing the left over money. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and its affiliated Jones Academy Foundation, sought to intervene on the basis that the amended distribution provision would adversely affect their opportunity to receive Cy Pres funds. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said the Choctaw have no legal right to intervene. "Because they lack standing under Article III and seek to raise legal rights of others in violation of the doctrine of prudential standing, the Choctaw movants are not entitled to intervene," he said in a memorandum opinion. The Choctaw argued that their injury was the lost opportunity to compete for the funds, but Sullivan disagreed. "In light of the Choctaw Nation's failure to qualify as a 'non- profit organization' under the agreement . . . any opportunity to compete using the joint proposal on which [they] rely is illusory," he said. "In any event, the Choctaw Movants lose no opportunity to compete under the modification." The Great Plains claimants said they wanted the distribution agreement amended to distribute the left over money to class members who have already received awards, such as themselves. Sullivan, however, shot that idea down, saying they have already given notice that they have satisfied their claims. Sullivan also cited the group's failure to object or appeal the Cy Pres provision of the settlement agreement. Further, they committed to filing for an award under the agreement's "Track A" provision, which granted members of the class a maximum cash award of $50,000, and acknowledged that they "forever and finally release the USDA from any and all claims and causes of action that have been or could have asserted . . . in the case." Sullivan said they were clearly given notice that unclaimed funds would be donated to one or more organizations that have provided direct assistance to Native Americans. "Because the Great Plains claimants retain no legal claim to the fund, their desire that the agreement be modified to provide for additional payments to previously successful class members, while understandable, is not a legal interest that faces imminent invasion," Sullivan said. "Accordingly, they lack standing." The case is Marilyn Keepseagle, et al. v. Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Case No. 99-3119 (EGS), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Faces "Sanborn" Suit Over High Electricity Rate ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Sanborn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Viridian Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01731 (D. Conn., November 19, 2014), alleges that the Defendant engaged in an unfair and deceptive scheme of charging residential consumers an extraordinarily high premium rate for electricity regardless of fluctuations in the underlying market price. Direct Energy Services, LLC provides electricity supply services within the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq. IZARD NOBEL, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6295 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com WEST 44TH STREET: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Sisois Giannakos and Dejan Stefanov, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. West 44th Street Restaurant LLC, d/b/a Kellari Taverna and Stavros Aktipis, Case No. 1:14-cv-09189 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Kellari Taverna Restaurant, located at 19 West 44th Street in Manhattan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-5639 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS: Remand of Painkiller Case Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------ When attorneys sought coordination of several propoxyphene actions in state court, they actually proposed that the cases be tried jointly by a federal judge, the en banc 9th Circuit ruled on November 18, 2014, reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service. In addition to multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Kentucky, there are more than 40 lawsuits pending in California's state courts against Teva Pharmaceuticals and Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals over the pain reliever formerly marketed as Darvocet and Darvon. Safety concerns got the drugs pulled from the market in 2010. Lawyers heading up much of the litigation asked the California Judicial Council in 2012 to coordinate the state-court proceedings under a local rule of civil procedure. Teva and Xanodyne meanwhile tried to remove the cases to federal court under the "mass-action provision" of the Class Action Fairness Act. The companies argued that the cases became a "mass action" subject to federal jurisdiction when the plaintiffs' lawyers proposed a joint-trial in their coordination petition. Finding that the petition for coordination was not the same as a proposal for a joint trial, U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez remanded the cases to state court. A three-judge appellate panel affirmed, but the 9th Circuit agreed to rehear the issue before an 11-judge panel. That panel reversed on November 18 in a 9-2 ruling. "We conclude that plaintiffs' petitions for coordination are proposals for joint trial," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the majority. The use of the phrases "for all purposes" and "all of the actions" had transformed the coordination proposal, according to the ruling. The majority rejected claims by the plaintiffs that one must "expressly request" a joint trial to qualify as a mass action under the CAFA. Judge Marsha Berzon joined Judge Johnnie Rawlinson in a dissent challenging this finding. Admitting that the case was "fairly close," Rawlinson argued that the majority had ignored the "well-established premise that removal is disfavored when determining federal jurisdiction, and that any doubt that exists when considering removal statutes should be construed against removal." With this in mind, the court should have affirmed, as the "plaintiffs' petition for coordination stopped short of requesting a joint trial as contemplated by the plain language of the statute," Rawlinson wrote. Plaintiffs-Appellees Romo, Corber, et al., are represented by: Louis M. Bograd, Esq. Andre M. Mura, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION, P.C. 777 6th Street NW, Suite 520 Washington, DC 20001-3723 Telephone: (202) 944-2803 Facsimile: (202) 965-0920 E-mail: lou.bograd@cclfirm.com Andre.mura@cclfirm.com - and - Matthew J. Sill, Esq. SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC 14005 N. Eastern Ave. Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 509-6300 Facsimile: (405) 509-6268 - and - Andrew N. Chang, Esq. Stuart B. Esner, Esq. ESNER, CHANG & BOYER 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 750 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 535-9860 Facsimile: (626) 535-9859 E-mail: achang@ecbappeal.com sesner@ecbappeal.com - and - Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. SANGUINETTI LAW 1970 Broadway, Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 622-8207 Facsimile: (510) 291-9742 E-mail: elise@sanguinettilaw.com Defendant-Appellant Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. is represented by: Jay Lefkowitz, Esq. Daniel A. Bress, Esq. Danielle R. Sassoon, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com daniel.bress@kirkland.com danielle.sassoon@kirkland.com - and - Ginger Pigott, Esq. Amy B. Alderfer, Esq. Karin L. Bohmholdt, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: pigottg@gtlaw.com alderfera@gtlaw.com bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com - and - Lori G. Cohen, Esq. Victoria D. Lockard, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (678) 553-2100 Facsimile: (678) 553-2212 E-mail: cohenl@gtlaw.com lockardv@gtlaw.com - and - Elliot H. Scherker, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 579-0500 Facsimile: (305) 579-0717 E-mail: scherkere@gtlaw.com Defendant-Appellant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is represented by: Karen Woodward, Esq. Hall R. Marston, Esq. Christopher P. Norton, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 801 S. Figueroa Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556 Telephone: (213) 426-6900 Facsimile: (213) 426-6921 E-mail: karen.woodward@sedgwicklaw.com hall.marston@sedgwicklaw.com christopher.norton@sedgwicklaw.com - and - Linda E. Maichl, Esq. Michael J. Suffern, Esq. ULMER & BERNE LLP 600 Vine Street, Suite 2800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 698-5000 Facsimile: (513) 698-5001 E-mail: lmaichl@ulmer.com msuffern@ulmer.com Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and PhRMA are represented by: Jeremy B. Rosen, Esq. HORVITZ & LEVY LLP 15760 Ventura Blvd., 18th Floor Encino, CA 91436-3006 Telephone: (818) 995-0800 Facsimile: (818) 995-3157 E-mail: jrosen@horvitzlevy.com Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation is represented by: Richard Abbott Samp, Esq. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION 2009 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 588-0302 Facsimile: (302) 588-0386 E-mail: rsamp@wlf.org Amicus Curiae American Association for Justice is represented by: David M. Arbogast, Esq. ARBOGAST LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 11400 W Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 477-7200 Facsimile: (310) 943-2309 E-mail: david@arbogastlawpc.com Amicus Curiae Product Liability Advisory Council is represented by: John Beisner, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 371-7000 Facsimile: (202) 393-5760 E-mail: john.beisner@skadden.com The appellate cases are Margalit Corber, et al. v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 13-56306; and Judith Romo, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 13-56310, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court cases are Margalit Corber, et al. v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-09986-PSG-E; and Judith Romo, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv- 02036-PSG-E, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. ZYNGA INC: Court Vacates Scheduled Hearing in "DeStefano" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court issued an order vacating the previously scheduled hearing and taking the motions under submission in the case DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al. The Company said, "On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class action captioned DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv- 04007-JSW, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers, and executives. Additional purported securities class actions containing similar allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26, 2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW. On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and provided plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint." "The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31, 2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including attorneys' fees. "The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 2, 2014, and briefing on the motion was completed in June 2014. On September 15, 2014, the court issued an order vacating the previously scheduled hearing and taking the motions under submission." ZYNGA INC: Case Management Conference in "Reyes" Suit Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court issued an order vacating the previously scheduled case management conference in the case Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et al. The Company said, "a purported securities class action captioned Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San Francisco County Superior Court. The action was removed to federal court, and was later remanded to San Francisco County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements in connection with an April 2012 secondary offering of Class A common stock. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the secondary offering. "On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to stay the action and a demurrer arguing that the complaint should be dismissed because the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims. "On August 26, 2013, the court issued orders overruling the demurrer and granting the motion to stay all deadlines in the action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the federal securities class action. "On September 29, 2014, the court issued orders denying a motion to continue the stay of the action and overruling a demurrer arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. "On October 15, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the California Court of Appeal seeking review of the denial of the motion to stay and of the trial court's ruling that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims. On October 23, 2014, the Court of Appeal issued an order requesting additional briefing on the petition. "On November 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed a preliminary opposition to the writ petition. The defendants' reply brief in support of the writ petition was due on November 10, 2014. A case management conference in the trial court had been scheduled for November 5, 2014 to discuss the schedule for further proceedings, including the schedule for briefing on the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On November 3, 2014, the court issued an order vacating the previously scheduled case management conference and instructing the parties to contact the court on November 10, 2014 to propose a new date." ZYNGA INC: Court Takes Motion to Dismiss Under Submission --------------------------------------------------------- Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court took the Company's motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending under submission. The Company said, "On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary offering. On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 6, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending. A hearing on the motions was held on August 22, 2014, and the court took the motions under submission." ********* 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 * * *