/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 11, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 246 Headlines ABBVIE INC: 7th Cir. Appeal in Health Center Suit Still Pending ABBVIE INC: Private Plaintiffs Claims Proceeding With FTC ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Factors for Class Suit Deal Approval Issued AKI'S FINE: Recalls Pickle and Chutney Products Due to Mustard ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York APRIA HEALTHCARE: March 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Among Defendants in Antitrust Class Action AQUA LUNG: Recalls SureLock II Weight Pocket Handles AT&T INC: Sued for Barring 100% Black-Owned Media From Being Paid AVESTA HOMES: Denies Overtime Wages to Class Members, Suit Says B.H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Seasoning Mix Due to Undeclared Peanut BILL COSBY: Sex Abuse Victim Mulls Class Action BITCASA INC: Court Denies Sealing Motion in "Romack" Class Action BMW: Recalls Cooper and Cooper S Models CAREFUSION CORP: Facing Class Action Over Becton Dickinson Merger CAREVANTAGE MEDICAL: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages CBE GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims CCB CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. CCC-BOONE LLC: Schneider Case Remanded to Watauga Cty Super. Ct. COOPER TIRE: Increases Products Liability Reserve in 3rd Quarter COOPER TIRE: Faces OFI Risk Arbitrages Suit Over Apollo Merger DAESUNG CELTIC: Recalls Tankless Gas Water Heaters DEPUY (IRELAND): Recalls Attune Fixed Bearing Tibial and Femoral DIRECTV: California Class Action Over AT&T Merger Stayed DIRECTV: Denial of Arbitration Bid Currently on Appeal DOLLAR TREE: Bid to Bifurcate Claims in Stafford Case Approved DURATA THERAPEUTICS: Inks MOU to Resolve Merger Class Suits EL POLLO: Faces Class Action by Former Employee in Orange, Calif. ELEKTA BUSINESS: Recalls Mosaiq (2014-11-07) ELI LILLY: Sued Over Injuries Arising From Cymbalta Withdrawal FAST EVICTION: Violates TCPA in California, Class Suit Claims FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act FIRST STEP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act FORD: Recalls Transit Model Due to Fuel Filter Mounting Bracket FORD: Recalls Transit Connect Model Due to Potential Fuel Leak FOREST RIVER: Recalls Salem and Wildwood Models FOX HILL: Recalls Underprocessed Cheese House Quark FRED DEELEY: Recalls Softail Slim Model GAMBRO RENAL: Recalls Polyflux Revaclear Dialyzers (2014-11-12) GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra and Silverado Models GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Impala Model GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hill" Suit in Northern District of Georgia HSS INC: Removes "Scott" Suit to Central District of California IMMUCOR INC: Recalls TPHA Screen (2014-11-12) INTELLIGENDER LLC: Case to Have Implications on CAFA Settlements INTERTHINX INC: Deal With Auditors & Underwriters Has Initial OK INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery Extended IOVATE HEALTH: Obtains Final Approval of Hydroxycut Case Deal IQBAL HALAL: Recalls Peek Freans Biscuits Due to Undeclared Milk JAGUAR: Recalls F-Type Model Due to Wiring Harness Configuration KING COUNTY, WA: Superior Court Order in "Dolan" Case Reversed LIFE PARTNERS: SEC Penalties May Hamper Investor Class Action LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls PC Brand Yogurt Products Due to Spoilage MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: February 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MOL GLOBAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. MVK GROCERY: Removes "Sanchez" Suit to Florida District Court NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Former Athletes File Class Action in Calif. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NEVADA PROPERTY: Significant Discovery Commenced in Class Suit NEVADA PROPERTY: Formal Dismissal Order Entered in Hotel Suit NEVADA PROPERTY: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Hotel Case NEVADA PROPERTY: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending NEW YORK CITY, NY: Accused of Discrimination Due to Disability NHA TRANG: Recalls Beef Balls Due to Listeria Monocytogenes NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Abrantes" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Accord in "Toth" Case Awaits Court Approval OMEGA FOOD: Recalls Marco Polo Chocolate Covered Wafer Bars OSOLEO WILDCRAFTERS: Recalls Unpasteurized Cranberry-Apple Cider PACKERS SANITATION: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims PEET'S OPERATING: Retaliated Against 87-Year-Old-Man, Suit Says RAGAN & RAGAN: Illegally Collects Consumer Debts, Suit Claims RALEIGH RESTAURANT: Holden Case Parties to Proceed to Arbitration RIPTIDE BY THE BAY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages RSG FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act SALLIE MAE: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in 2 TCPA Cases SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Still Faces "Glitz" and "Thornberry" Case SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces "Herman" Contract-Related Suit in Florida SIMPSON UCHITEL: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations in Georgia STEPHENS AND MICHAELS: Sued in E.D. New York for Violating FDCPA SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Arizona Owner-Operator Action SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Supreme Court Denies Writ of Certiorari SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Calif. Wage, Meal & Rest Cases SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Montalvo" Minimum Wage Action SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Calix" Minimum Wage Action SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Peck" Class Action in California SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Slack" Overtime Class Action SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still to Face "Roberts" Minimum Wage Action SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Cilluffo" Action in Utah SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Class Suit Alleging Trademark Infringement TAKATA CORP: Faces Class Action in BC Over Airbag Defect TAKATA CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Airbag Defect Cases TAKATA CORP: Exec Defends Decision Not Initiate Nationwide Recall TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Suit Transferred From N.J. to Nebraska TRUE NORTH: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says UNITED NORTHERN: Sexually Harassed Gay Loan Originator, Suit Says VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Seek Approval of Settlement VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act * Jails Take Steps to Abide by 48-Hour Rule After Class Actions * Tenants Can Seek Overcharges From New York City Landlords ********* ABBVIE INC: 7th Cir. Appeal in Health Center Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., have appealed the decision dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where the matter is currently pending, AbbVie 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. In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit providers alleging violations of federal RICO statutes and state deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from 1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and attorneys' fees. On August 14, 2014, the district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where the matter is currently pending. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company. ABBVIE INC: Private Plaintiffs Claims Proceeding With FTC --------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie 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 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remanded the private plaintiffs' claims regarding a patent litigation settlement, which are proceeding with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) in discovery in the district court. Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) and others were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi District Litigation Rules as In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation involving AndroGel was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement agreement and related agreements with three generic companies violate federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. MDL 2084 includes: (a) three individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b) seven purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. , filed in May 2009 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Following the district court's dismissal of all plaintiffs' claims, the FTC's appeal led to its claim regarding the patent litigation settlement being reinstated. In February 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remanded the private plaintiffs' claims regarding the patent litigation settlement, which are proceeding with the FTC's in discovery in the district court. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Factors for Class Suit Deal Approval Issued ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SAMANTHA JONES, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH TRADING CO., an Ohio corporation; ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. C 14-04631 WHA, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup issued a notice regarding factors to be evaluated for any proposed class settlement. The factors are: 1. Adequacy of Representation. 2. Due Diligence. 3. Cost-Benefit for Absent Class Members. 4. The Release. 5. Expansion of the Class. 6. Reversion. 7. Claim Procedure. 8. Attorney's Fees. 9. Dwindling or Minimal Assets? 10. Timing of Proposed Settlement. 11. A Right to Opt Out is Not a Cure-All. 12. Incentive Payment. 13. Notice to Class Members. A copy of the November 21, 2014 notice is available at http://is.gd/3scvnUfrom Leagle.com. Samantha Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Hannan Phelps -- marchannanphelps@gmail.com -- The Phelps Law Group, Bianca Alexandra Sofonio -- bianca@carterlawfirm.net -- The Carter Law Firm, Roger Richard Carter -- rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- The Carter Law Firm & Scott Bradley Cooper -- scott@cooper-firm.com -- The Cooper Law Firm, P.C. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., an Ohio corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas R. Young -- dyoung@fbm.com -- Farella Braun & Martel LLP & Christina Rose Hollander -- chollander@fbm.com -- Farella Braun and Martel LLP. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas R. Young, Farella Braun & Martel LLP & Christina Rose Hollander, Farella Braun and Martel LLP. AKI'S FINE: Recalls Pickle and Chutney Products Due to Mustard -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Aki's Fine Foods Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9422 Aki's Fine Foods Ltd. is recalling certain Aki's brand pickle and chutney products from the marketplace because they contain mustard which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled products described. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Timinsky, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07059 (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating 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 APRIA HEALTHCARE: March 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- If you received a call from or on behalf of Apria Healthcare, you could be entitled to benefits under a class action settlement. WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? A proposed settlement of a class action entitled Carrie Couser v. Apria Healthcare, Inc., No. SACV13-00035-JVS (RNBx), has been reached in United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff claims, among other things, that Apria and its vendors placed calls to cellular telephones in violation of federal law. Apria denies any wrongdoing and has asserted defenses. In agreeing to settle, Apria does not admit any wrongdoing. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Under the proposed settlement, Apria will provide payments, vouchers, or debt forgiveness (as applicable), to certain members of the proposed class. It may also forgive certain debts owed by other members of the proposed class. For details regarding those payments, please visit www.CouserTCPAsettlement.com Class Members will also have the option to elect not to receive calls from or on behalf of Apria. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? If you remain a Class Member, and the Court approves the settlement, you will be legally bound by its terms and will release your claims relating to calls placed by or on behalf of Apria. If you want to exclude yourself from this settlement, you must send a written request specifically stating that you request exclusion from the settlement to Couser v. Apria Healthcare, c/o GCG, PO Box 10133, Dublin, OH 43017-3133, postmarked no later than January 26, 2015. If you remain a Class Member, you may object to the settlement by writing to Class Counsel no later than January 26, 2015. Full details on how to object or exclude yourself can be found at www.CouserTCPAsettlement.com SETTLEMENT HEARING The Court will hold a hearing on March 9, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., to consider whether to approve the settlement, award attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $195,000, and award Ms. Couser $5,000 for serving as Representative Plaintiff. You or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at your own expense. A more detailed Notice and a Claim Form are available at www.CouserTCPAsettlement.com The website also explains the Settlement terms in more detail. You may write to Couser v. Apria Healthcare, c/o GCG, PO Box 10133, Dublin, OH 43017-3133 to request the more detailed Notice and Claim Form. TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT, VOUCHER, OR DEBT FORGIVENESS (AS APPLICABLE), YOU MUST SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM. YOU MAY COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM ONLINE BY VISITING WWW.COUSERTCPASETTLEMENT.COM OR YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THE CLAIM FORM AVAILABLE AT WWW.COUSERTCPASETTLEMENT.COM COMPLETE IT, AND MAIL IT TO COUSER V. APRIA HEALTHCARE, C/O GCG, PO BOX 10133, DUBLIN, OH 43017-3133 POSTMARKED BY FEBRUARY 24, 2015. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Among Defendants in Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Sanders, writing for New Hampshire Business Review, reports that Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Hampshire is a defendant in a national class action suit charging that the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and its affiliates have engaged in an anti-competitive conspiracy to lower prices paid to providers and increase premiums paid by subscribers. The plaintiffs -- including two subscribers from the Granite State -- allege that the 37 Blue Cross and Blue Shield affiliates have, through agreements and programs of the national Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, effectively set up monopolies in each of their territories, colluding to prevent competition with each other, as well as keep out non-Blues competitors. "BCBSA is simply a vehicle used by admittedly independent health insurance companies to conspire, coordinate and enter into agreements that restrain competition," said one of the amended consolidated complaints, which were filed on Sept. 30. Plaintiff GC/AAA Fences Inc., a Dover firm that has used Anthem coverage for its employees since 2009, referred all questions to Sean O'Connell, an attorney and director of the Shaheen & Gordon law firm. Mr. O'Connell did not respond by deadline. Plaintiff Erik Barstow, a Portsmouth attorney who has purchased an individual policy from Anthem since 2012, also could not be reached. Barstow was once a director of New Hampshire Businesses for Social Responsibility. Anthem in New Hampshire declined comment on pending litigation, but the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association issued a statement through its public relations firm saying that the suit had no merit and it would vigorously defend itself. "The Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, which are independent, community-based and locally operated, provide local solutions that improve access to affordable, quality healthcare. The plans have served this important role for more than 80 years and, during that time, the Blue model of service has been validated and enforced by numerous courts and regulatory agencies," the association said. The litigation, which dates back to the beginning of 2013, and is now in the preliminary discovery phase, contains two complaints: one from providers and the other from subscribers. Both name many of the same defendants (including Anthem in New Hampshire) and make many of the same points: * Blue Cross and Blue Shield Chapters -- founded in the 1930s and 1940s -- used to vigorously compete against each other, encroaching on each other's territories, often several vying for the same state, said the complaints. But they formed the association in the 1980s, effectively preventing this kind of rivalry. As a result, "the number of Member Plans went from 110 in 1984 to 75 in 1989, to 37 today," according to the complaints. * Even though each chapter was supposed to be run as an independent business, they cooperated in numerous ways to avoid competing with each other. They were also prevented from competing against non-Blue subsidiaries of the defendants. This constitutes a "market allocation" conspiracy, they charge. The defendants also engaged in a "price-fixing and boycott conspiracy," according to the complaint, partially by participating in the Blue Card program and a National Accounts program for employers and employees who get services in various states. The programs earn the companies money at the expense of the providers, and divide up the excess profits, according to the complaint. By participating in the plan, the Blues have agreed not to negotiate directly with providers outside their service area, the provider complaint charges, and "when Providers believe their patients are better served by using an out-of-network facility, the Blues retaliate by threatening to terminate the Providers from the Blue networks." The companies also share claims information, which help it negotiate lower prices, again keeping out competition, according to the complaint. The result has enabled the company to reduce payments to providers by an excess of "ten billion dollars a year." The complaints also charge that the Blues have veered from their nonprofit origins, increasingly affiliating with for-profit insurance companies, particularly WellPoint, the largest health insurance company in the nation with 37 million enrollees. WellPoint, which owns Anthem, operates Blues in 14 states. But WellPoint has said it has been restrained from competing in the other states, telling the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2011 that it had "no right to market products and services using the Blue Cross Blue Shield names and marks outside of the states in which we are licensed to sell Blue Cross Blue Shield products." WellPoint's New Hampshire affiliate has 600,000 members and about a 44 percent market share in the state, according to the complaints. "As the dominant insurer in New Hampshire, BCBS-NH has led the way in causing supra-competitive prices. For example, from 2009 to 2010 the cost of insurance coverage for small groups and individuals rose 15 percent and 39 percent, respectively," the subscribers' complaint says. "These rising premiums have enabled BCBS-NH to lavishly compensate its executives and grow its surplus in excessive amounts, unusual practices for a self-described nonprofit organization. Between 2006 and 2011, BCBS-NH reported annual income between $26 million and $112 million and a cumulative profit of approximately $360 million." Blue Cross stopped being a nonprofit organization in 1999, when it was acquired by Anthem. AQUA LUNG: Recalls SureLock II Weight Pocket Handles ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 12, 2014 Posting date: November 12, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42157 Affected products: SureLock II rubber handles on Buoyancy compensators The recall involves all Aqua Lung buoyancy compensator vests with SureLock II rubber handles attached to the weight pockets. The grey rubber handle measures approximately 5 centimetres tall and 10 centimetres wide, and extends from the forward end of the ditchable weight pockets. The buoyancy compensator's model name is embroidered on the inside back pad or on the right lobe. Sure Lock is moulded into the back of the weight pocket. The serial numbers are located on a tag under the back pad of the buoyancy compensator or inside the pocket. Earlier models could have the number printed on a tag behind the hook and loop inflator hold down on the left shoulder. These models with serial numbers lower than BB408620 are affected by this recall: Discontinued Models: Black Diamond, Pro QD, Pro QDi3. Current Models Apeks Black Ice, Axiom, Axiom i3, Balance, Dimension, Libra, Lotus, Pearl, Pearl i3, Pro LT, Zuma. The rubber handle may separate from the weight pocket prohibiting the diver from removing the weight pockets when rising to the surface in an emergency, posing a drowning hazard. In the United States, Aqua Lung is aware of 50 reports of handles detaching from the weight pockets. No consumer incidents or injuries have been reported. The company has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these buoyancy compensators. Approximately 11,300 units were sold in Canada, and 140,000 units were sold in the United States. The recalled products were manufactured in China and Mexico and sold from Sept. 2008 to Oct. 2014. Companies: Importer Aqua Lung America Vista California United States Distributor Aqua Lung Canada Victoria British Columbia Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the buoyancy compensators and return the two weight pockets to an authorized Aqua Lung dealer to receive a free inspection and free newly designed replacement weight pocket handles. AT&T INC: Sued for Barring 100% Black-Owned Media From Being Paid ----------------------------------------------------------------- National Association of African-American Owned Media, a California limited liability company v. AT&T, Inc. a Delaware corporation; AT&T Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; AT&T Mobility LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DirecTV, a California limited liability company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-09256 (C.D. Cal., December 2, 2014) alleges that white-owned media has deceptively worked hand-in-hand with governmental regulators to perpetrate the exclusion of 100% African American-owned media from being paid for channel carriage. NAAAOM is a California limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. AT&T, Inc., AT&T Services, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC are all Delaware corporations, with their principal places of business in Texas. AT&T also has an office and operates in Los Angeles, California. DirecTV, LLC is a California limited liability company, with its principal place of business in El Segundo, California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis R. Miller, Esq. Amnon Z. Siegel, Esq. Lauren R. Wright, Esq. MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-4400 Facsimile: (310) 552-8400 E-mail: smiller@millerbarondess.com asiegel@millerbarondess.com lwright@millerbarondess.com AVESTA HOMES: Denies Overtime Wages to Class Members, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Osmel Rodriguez, Lhirino Rogelio, Julio Roche and David Diaz, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avesta Homes, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-03020-VMC-TBM (M.D. Fla., December 2, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged denial of overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, 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 lcabassa@wfclaw.com B.H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Seasoning Mix Due to Undeclared Peanut ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 10, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: B.H. Kosher Select Food Dist. Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9444 The food recall warning issued on October 31, 2014, has been updated to include additional lot codes. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. B.H. Kosher Select Food Dist. is recalling Ortega brand Taco Seasoning Mix from the marketplace because it contains peanut and almond which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut or almond should not consume the recalled product described. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have an allergy to peanut or almond, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 35.4 g. Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix BILL COSBY: Sex Abuse Victim Mulls Class Action ----------------------------------------------- TMZ reports that one of Bill Cosby's alleged victims not only plans to sue him . . . she's trying to get all of his accusers in a single lawsuit to convince a jury . . . all these woman just can't be lying. Louisa Moritz -- who claims Mr. Cosby stuck his penis in her mouth in her dressing room before a "Tonight Show" appearance in 1971 -- is interviewing L.A. area lawyers to file a class action lawsuit . . . and she wants minimum 9 other women to join her. Ms. Moritz told TMZ that she's already reaching out to the other alleged victims. Ms. Moritz has 2 big problems . . . the statute of limitations and the fact that she never told anyone about the incident until speaking to TMZ. As for the statute . . . Ms. Moritz thinks even if the case gets thrown out, the fact that multiple women present a united front is meaningful. And as for her belated revelation . . . she says she blocked it and it only became vivid again after various women began stepping forward over the last two weeks. She's already gotten legal advice that this could be like Wade Robson's suit against Michael Jackson after he died . . . if a victim remembers the incident later in life due to repressed memories -- they can attempt to sue as long as it's within a year of remembering. BITCASA INC: Court Denies Sealing Motion in "Romack" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN ROMACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BITCASA, INC., Defendant, NO. C 14-05005 WHA, (N.D. Cal.) is a putative class action. On November 18 -- the day before the preliminary injunction hearing -- defendant Bitcasa, Inc. filed an administrative motion for leave to file under seal certain proposed redactions in (1) its opposition to a preliminary injunction and (2) a declaration filed in support of its opposition. A declaration from Bitcasa's Vice President was filed in support of sealing "data and statistics Bitcasa collects," Bitcasa's financial data," and "how much we pay to rent servers from Amazon Web Services." District Judge William Alsup finds that neither good cause nor compelling reasons support many of the proposed redactions. The vast majority of Bitcasa's sealing motion is overstated and not narrowly tailored to only sealable material supported by specific declarations, he says. Moreover, even its revenues, costs of renting server space, and debts are not sealable on this motion. Bitcasa seeks relief from a temporary restraining order in a putative class action. Putative class members, the public, and the press have a right to see what Bitcasa has submitted in its opposition brief in this record, notes Judge Alsup. "Accordingly, Bitcasa's sealing motion is denied in its entirety," ruled the Court. "The entire opposition and supporting declaration shall be publicly filed." A copy of the November 19, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/N3swGEfrom Leagle.com. Shawn Romack, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan S Elias -- jelias@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Roger Norton Heller -- rheller@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Bitcasa, Inc, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown -- brownmd@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. BMW: Recalls Cooper and Cooper S Models --------------------------------------- Starting date: November 6, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Inconsequential System: Airbag Units affected: 282 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014506 TC ID number: 2014506 On certain vehicles, a defect in the seatback adjustment mechanism of the front seats could allow seatback(s) to move out of position in a severe impact, increasing the risk of injury to the seat occupant(s). Correction: Dealers will re-align and re-tighten the seatback mechanisms. Affected products: 2015 Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S CAREFUSION CORP: Facing Class Action Over Becton Dickinson Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- CareFusion 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 as a result of the Company's proposed merger transaction with Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD"), the Company is also subject to putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger transaction with BD. "We intend to defend ourselves in any such matters," CareFusion said. CareFusion was incorporated in Delaware on January 14, 2009, for the purpose of holding the clinical and medical products businesses of Cardinal Health in anticipation of spinning off from Cardinal Health. It completed the spinoff from Cardinal Health on August 31, 2009. CAREVANTAGE MEDICAL: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celina Del Pino v. CareVantage Medical Centers of Miami at Hialeah, LLLC, CareVantage Medical Partners, LLC, and Alberto Lamadrid, Case No. 1:14-cv-24579-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 3, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff earned but did not receive overtime wages calculated at time and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all time spent working over 40 hours per week from the Defendants at all times material. CareVantage Medical Centers of Miami at Hialeah, LLC, is a sui juris Florida for-profit business with its principal place of business and registered agent in Miami-Dade County, Florida. CareVantage Medical Partners, LLC, is a sui juris Florida for- profit business also headquartered in Miami-Dade County. Alberto Lamadrid is the owner, operator or managing member of the Corporate Defendants. The Defendants provides medical care and services. The Defendants also submits billings and receipt of payment involving out-of- state medical payors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 Facsimile: (305) 230-4844 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com CBE GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Dorfman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. The CBE Group, Inc. f/k/a Nelson, Watson & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07060 (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 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 CCB CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Labin, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. CCB Credit Services Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 07022 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating 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 CCC-BOONE LLC: Schneider Case Remanded to Watauga Cty Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard L. Voorhees granted a motion to remand to Watauga County Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) the case captioned JONATHAN SCHNEIDER, DEANNA REARY, and LANGDON CLAY, all individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CCC-BOONE, LLC, AND CAPSTONE PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 5:13-CV-144, (W.D. N.C.), as well as a motion for attorneys' fees and costs filed in the case. The Plaintiffs in this complaint seek class-wide relief for damages allegedly suffered after entering lease agreements with Defendants CCC-Boone, LLC and Capstone Properties, LLC for occupancy of newly constructed student housing units located in Boone, North Carolina. Defendants filed their Notice of Removal to the United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division, under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1332 on October 21, 2013. On November 20, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to Watauga County Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), and for attorneys' fees and costs. According to Judge Voorhees' November 21, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/4dLT23from Leagle.com, "Defendants lacked any objectively reasonable basis for removing this matter to federal court. This is demonstrated by the fact that, at a minimum, each Plaintiff's claim was $68,700.01 short of meeting the amount in controversy requirement. This obvious error is compounded by the fact that Plaintiffs provided notice to Defendants of this obvious error. Again, because Defendants failed to explain their reasoning, the Court does not know whether this error was a result of unfamiliarity with the removal procedure to federal court, honest confusion regarding the law, or sincere belief compounded by poor communication. Whatever the reason, an award of attorneys' fees is appropriate because of the resulting delay in resolution of this case and waste of judicial resources." "Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims for relief, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is not properly before this Court, and is hereby dismissed as without prejudice," Judge Voorhees added. Jonathan Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Augustus Capua -- pcapua@capualawfirm.com -- Capua Law Firm, PA. Deanna Reary, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Augustus Capua, Capua Law Firm, PA. Langdon Clay, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Augustus Capua, Capua Law Firm, PA. CCC-Boone, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory Wenzl Brown -- gregory@brownlawllp.com -- Brown Law LLP & Justin Matthew Osborn -- justin@brownlawllp.com -- Brown Law LLP. Capstone Properties, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory Wenzl Brown, Brown Law LLP & Justin Matthew Osborn, Brown Law LLP. COOPER TIRE: Increases Products Liability Reserve in 3rd Quarter ---------------------------------------------------------------- During the third quarter of 2014, Cooper Tire & Rubber Company increased its products liability reserve by $14,037,000, the Company 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. The Company is a defendant in various products liability claims brought in numerous jurisdictions in which individuals seek damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents allegedly caused by defective tires manufactured by the Company. Each of the products liability claims faced by the Company generally involve different types of tires, models and lines, different circumstances surrounding the accident such as different applications, vehicles, speeds, road conditions, weather conditions, driver error, tire repair and maintenance practices, service life conditions, as well as different jurisdictions and different injuries. In addition, in many of the Company's products liability lawsuits the plaintiff alleges that his or her harm was caused by one or more co- defendants who acted independently of the Company. Accordingly, both the claims asserted and the resolutions of those claims have an enormous amount of variability. The aggregate amount of damages asserted at any point in time is not determinable since often times when claims are filed, the plaintiffs do not specify the amount of damages. Even when there is an amount alleged, at times the amount is wildly inflated and has no rational basis. The fact that the Company is a defendant in products liability lawsuits is not surprising given the current litigation climate, which is largely confined to the United States. However, the fact that the Company is subject to claims does not indicate that there is a quality issue with the Company's tires. The Company sells approximately 30 to 35 million passenger, light truck, SUV, radial medium truck and motorcycle tires per year in North America. The Company estimates that approximately 300 million Company-produced tires -- made up of thousands of different specifications -- are still on the road in North America. While tire disablements do occur, it is the Company's and the tire industry's experience that the vast majority of tire failures relate to service-related conditions, which are entirely out of the Company's control -- such as failure to maintain proper tire pressure, improper maintenance, road hazard and excessive speed. The Company accrues costs for products liability at the time a loss is probable and the amount of loss can be estimated. The Company believes the probability of loss can be established and the amount of loss can be estimated only after certain minimum information is available, including verification that Company- produced products were involved in the incident giving rise to the claim, the condition of the product purported to be involved in the claim, the nature of the incident giving rise to the claim and the extent of the purported injury or damages. In cases where such information is known, each products liability claim is evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances. A judgment is then made to determine the requirement for establishment or revision of an accrual for any potential liability. The liability often cannot be determined with precision until the claim is resolved. Pursuant to applicable accounting rules, the Company accrues the minimum liability for each known claim when the estimated outcome is a range of possible loss and no one amount within that range is more likely than another. The Company uses a range of losses because an average cost would not be meaningful since the products liability claims faced by the Company are unique and widely variable, and accordingly, the resolutions of those claims have an enormous amount of variability. The costs have ranged from zero dollars to $33 million in one case with no "average" that is meaningful. No specific accrual is made for individual unasserted claims or for premature claims, asserted claims where the minimum information needed to evaluate the probability of a liability is not yet known. However, an accrual for such claims based, in part, on management's expectations for future litigation activity and the settled claims history is maintained. Because of the speculative nature of litigation in the U.S., the Company does not believe a meaningful aggregate range of potential loss for asserted and unasserted claims can be determined. The Company's experience has demonstrated that its estimates have been reasonably accurate and, on average, cases are settled at amounts close to the reserves established. However, it is possible an individual claim from time to time may result in an aberration from the norm and could have a material impact. The Company determines its reserves using the number of incidents expected during a year. During the third quarter of 2014, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $14,037,000. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $12,331,000 of this increase. Settlements and changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability increased by $1,706,000. During the first nine months of 2014, the Company increased its products liability reserve by $40,499,000. The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted for $36,993,000 of this increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions decreased the reserve by $600,000. Finally, settlements and changes in the amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known to estimate a liability increased by $4,106,000. The time frame for the payment of a products liability claim is too variable to be meaningful. From the time a claim is filed to its ultimate disposition depends on the unique nature of the case, how it is resolved -- claim dismissed, negotiated settlement, trial verdict and appeals process -- and is highly dependent on jurisdiction, specific facts, the plaintiff's attorney, the court's docket and other factors. Given that some claims may be resolved in weeks and others may take five years or more, it is impossible to predict with any reasonable reliability the time frame over which the accrued amounts may be paid. The Company paid $5,701,000 during the third quarter of 2014 to resolve cases and claims and has paid $38,960,000 through the first nine months of 2014. The Company's products liability reserve balance at December 31, 2013 totaled $189,513,000 (the current portion of $70,472,000 is included in Accrued liabilities and the long-term portion is included in Other long-term liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets). The products liability reserve balance at September 30, 2014 totaled $191,052,000 (current portion of $70,314,000). The products liability expense reported by the Company includes amortization of insurance premium costs, adjustments to settlement reserves and legal costs incurred in defending claims against the Company offset by recoveries of legal fees. Legal costs are expensed as incurred and products liability insurance premiums are amortized over coverage periods. For the three-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and 2014, products liability expenses totaled $25,722,000 and $21,227,000, respectively. For the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and 2014, products liability expenses totaled $67,924,000 and $62,039,000, respectively. Products liability expenses are included in cost of goods sold in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. COOPER TIRE: Faces OFI Risk Arbitrages Suit Over Apollo Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Tire & Rubber Company 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 January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a putative class-action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware relating to the terminated merger transaction with Apollo Tyres Ltd. That lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that the Company and certain officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the terminated transaction and seeks, among other things, damages. The Company and its officers believe that the allegations against them lack merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. This case has recently been filed and is at an early stage. As a result, the outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and an estimate of any such loss cannot be made at this time. The Company believes that based upon information currently available, any liabilities that may result from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, financial condition or results of operations. DAESUNG CELTIC: Recalls Tankless Gas Water Heaters -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 13, 2014 Posting date: November 13, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42147 Affected products: Tankless gas water heaters The recall involves all models of single- and dual-purpose Coaire and Quietside brand tankless gas water heaters. The recalled water heaters heat either 15 or 27 litres (4 or 7.2 gallons) of water per minute. They are white and come in the following dimension ranges: 63.5 to 71 centimetres (25 to 28 inches) tall x 38 to 48 centimetres (15 to 19 inches) wide x 20 to 35.5 centimetres (8 to 14 inches) thick. The words "S-Line Condensing" are on the top front and brand names "Coaire" or "Quietside" are on the bottom front of the recalled water heaters. The water heaters can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Daesung has received 40 reports of the units overheating in the United States, including four involving burns on the wall where the heater was mounted and two involving fires and property damage. No injuries have been reported. Neither Health Canada nor Daesung has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Approximately 2,200 of the recalled water heaters were sold in Canada and about 29,000 in the United States. The recalled water heaters were manufactured in Korea and sold from July 2008 through August 2014 in Canada and the United States by independent dealers nationwide and on various websites, including Amazon.com and Amazon.ca. Companies: Manufacturer Daesung Celtic Enersys Co. Ltd. Chungbuk Korea, Democratic People's Republic Of' Distributor Challenger Supply Holdings Inc. Fort Worth Texas United States Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled water heaters and contact Challenger Supply Holdings to arrange for a free repair. DEPUY (IRELAND): Recalls Attune Fixed Bearing Tibial and Femoral ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 11, 2014 Posting date: November 21, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42249 Recalled products: Attune Fixed Bearing Tibial Impactor Attune Femoral Component Impactor Attune Rotating Platform Tibial Impact. Attune Intuition Impaction Handle Depuy is issuing a customer letter to notify users that all lots of attune intuition impaction handle and impactors have the potential to fracture during impaction. If not observed during surgery, broken pieces of the instruments may be left in the patient. Companies: Manufacturer Depuy (Ireland) Loughbeg Ringaskiddy Ireland DIRECTV: California Class Action Over AT&T Merger Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- The DIRECTV shareholder litigation in California over the proposed DIRECTV and AT&T Merger has been stayed, DIRECTV 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. Beginning on May 21, 2014, and following the May 18, 2014 announcement that DIRECTV had entered into a definitive agreement to combine with AT&T Inc., several shareholder putative class action lawsuits were filed, six in Delaware Chancery Court, or the Delaware Actions, and one in California Superior Court, or the California Action, against DIRECTV, its directors and AT&T Inc., alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction. The complaints generally and collectively asserted that defendants failed to maximize the value of DIRECTV, and sought to enjoin the proposed transaction as well as unspecified damages, costs and fees. An Order consolidating the Delaware Actions and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel was entered on July 21, 2014 and discovery in the Delaware Actions was stayed pending the filing of a Consolidated Complaint. Subsequently, Lead Counsel in the Delaware Actions filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the Delaware Actions against all defendants and that motion was granted by order entered by the Chancery Court on October 28, 2014. The California Action has been stayed (including discovery) by stipulation dated September 30, 2014 subject to the court's order approving the stipulation and remains pending at this time. DIRECTV is a provider of digital television entertainment in the United States and Latin America. DIRECTV: Denial of Arbitration Bid Currently on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ DIRECTV 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 denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration in the class action over early cancellation fees is currently on appeal. In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when they do not fulfill their programming commitments. "We have reached a settlement in principle with the individual plaintiffs in the federal cases and are finalizing the settlement agreements. In the California state court action, the denial of our motion to compel arbitration is currently on appeal. We believe that our early cancellation fees are adequately disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of the costs we incur when customers cancel service before fulfilling their programming commitments," the Company said. DIRECTV is a provider of digital television entertainment in the United States and Latin America. DOLLAR TREE: Bid to Bifurcate Claims in Stafford Case Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted a motion to bifurcate plaintiff's individual and representative claims in the case captioned RICHARD STAFFORD, Individually, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-1187 KJM CKD, (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Jay Narvaez and Lisa Hornsby filed their complaint on November 19, 2012, in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging a number of wage and hour class claims and a Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim against Dollar Tree. Their first amended complaint was filed in the Superior Court on January 7, 2013, adding Richard Stafford as a plaintiff. Defendant removed the case to the Central District on February 5, 2013. On February 12, 2013, plaintiff Stafford filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in the Central District, removing the class claims and alleging these claims, all stemming from his work as an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree Store: (1) failure to provide meal periods, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7(a), 512(a), and 1198; (2) failure to provide rest periods, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7(a) and 1198; (3) failure to pay minimum and regular wages, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1197 and 1198; (4) failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510 and 1198; (5) failure to maintain accurate records, Cal. Lab. Code Section 1198; (6) failure to provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226(a) and 1198; and (7) failure timely to pay wages due during employment, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 204(a) and 1198. Plaintiff alleges he is an "aggrieved employee" within the meaning of the PAGA, California's Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 2699, et seq. Neither Narvaez nor Hornsby was listed as plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint. On February 26, 2013, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to transfer. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand. On June 22, 2013, the Central District court denied the motions to remand and to dismiss and granted the motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District, where a related case had been filed. On November 7, 2013, plaintiff filed a second motion to remand in the Eastern District of Calif. Court. The court denied the motion on March 28, 2014. On July 7, 2014, defendant filed the motion to bifurcate plaintiff's individual and representative claims. Judge Mueller's November 21, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/kyOYg3from Leagle.com, provided that the Defendant's motion to bifurcate is granted, and plaintiff's individual Labor Code claims will be determined before the representative PAGA claims. The case is set for a further scheduling conference on December 11, 2014. The parties' joint statement concerning the bifurcated schedule is due within seven days before the further scheduling conference. Richard Stafford, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of Dollar Tree Stores Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Richard Short -- bshort@grahamhollis.com -- Graham Hollis APC & Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- GrahamHollis, APC. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lindbergh Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Alison Jacquelyn Cubre -- acubre@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Constance E. Norton -- cnorton@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.c. & Tarun Mehta -- tmehta@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C. DURATA THERAPEUTICS: Inks MOU to Resolve Merger Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Durata Therapeutics, 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, each of its directors, Actavis W.C. Holding and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs in the Campbell, Kansagara, Stein, and Pelpola class actions. On October 5, 2014, Durata Therapeutics, Inc. entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the Merger Agreement) with Actavis W.C. Holding Inc. (Actavis W.C. Holding) and Delaware Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Actavis W.C. Holding (Merger Sub), pursuant to which, and on the terms and subject to the conditions thereof, among other things, Merger Sub is obligated to commence a tender offer (the Offer) on or before October 21, 2014, to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company at a purchase price of $23.00 per share net to the seller in cash, without interest and less any applicable withholding taxes (the Cash Consideration), plus one non-transferable contractual contingent value right per share (each, a CVR), which represents the right to receive contingent payments of up to $5.00 in cash in the aggregate, if any, without interest and less any applicable withholding taxes, if specified milestones are achieved (the Contingent Consideration and together with the Cash Consideration, the Offer Consideration), subject to and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a CVR Agreement to be entered into between Actavis W.C. Holding and a rights agent selected by Actavis W.C. Holding and reasonably acceptable to the Company. The proposed transactions have been approved by the boards of directors of Actavis W.C. Holding, Merger Sub and the Company. On October 17, 2014, Merger Sub commenced the Offer. Unless extended by Actavis W.C. Holding in accordance with the Merger Agreement, the offering period for the Offer was to expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, on November 14, 2014. The Company expects the Merger to close in the fourth quarter of 2014. The outside date, after which either party may terminate the Merger Agreement if the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement have not been consummated, is March 5, 2015. On October 10, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Warren Campbell v. Ahrens, et al., No. 10222 (Del. Ch. Ct.), was filed against the Company, the Company's board of directors, Actavis W.C. Holding, and others in Delaware Chancery Court. The complaint alleges that members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the Merger and that Actavis W.C. Holding and the Company aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges that the Company directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale process, failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and other terms, and failing to inform themselves of the value of the Company. On October 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to include additional allegations that the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by misrepresenting and omitting information in the Schedule 14D-9, including that the Company's board of directors misrepresented or omitted information concerning (1) the Company's financial projections; (2) Bank of America Merrill Lynch's financial analyses for the Company; (3) potential conflicts of interest with the Merger; and (4) facts about the background leading up to the announcement of the Merger. The plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from consummating the Merger, in addition to other unspecified damages, fees and costs. Also on October 10, 2014, another putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Shiva Stein v. Durata Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 2014-CH-16430 (Ill. Cir. Ct.), was filed against the Company, the Company's board of directors, Actavis W.C. Holding, and Merger Sub in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaint alleges that members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the Merger and that the Company, Actavis W.C. Holding and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges that the Company directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale process, failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and other terms, and failing to inform themselves of the value of the Company. On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to include additional allegations that the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by misrepresenting and omitting information in the Schedule 14D-9, including that the Company's board of directors misrepresented or omitted information concerning (1) the Company's financial projections; (2) Bank of America Merrill Lynch's financial analyses for the Company; (3) potential conflicts of interest with the Merger; and (4) facts about the background leading up to the announcement of the Merger. Also on October 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion with the Court asking the Court to expedite the proceedings in this case. The plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from consummating the Merger, in addition to other unspecified damages, fees and costs. On October 20, 2014, another putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Nadyenka Pelpola v. Ahrens, et al., No. 2014- CH-16971 (Ill. Cir. Ct.), was filed against the Company, the Company's board of directors, Actavis W.C. Holding, and Merger Sub in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaint alleges that members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the Merger and that the Company, Actavis W.C. Holding and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges that the Company directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale process, failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and other terms, and failing to inform themselves of the value of the Company. The plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from consummating the Merger, in addition to other unspecified damages, fees and costs. On October 23, 2014, another putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Darshan Kansagara v. Durata Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 10279 (Del. Ch. Ct.), was filed against the Company and the Company's board of directors in Delaware Chancery Court. The complaint alleges that members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the Merger. The complaint alleges that the Company directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale process, failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and other terms, and failing to inform themselves of the value of the Company. Plaintiff also alleges that the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by misrepresenting and omitting information in the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement that was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2014, including that the Company's board of directors misrepresented or omitted information concerning (1) the Company's financial projections; (2) the financial analyses of the Company's financial advisor; (3) potential conflicts of interest with the Merger; and (4) facts about the background leading up to the announcement of the Merger. Also on October 23, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion with the Court asking the Court to expedite the proceedings in this case and asking the Court to preliminarily enjoin the Merger. The plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from consummating the Merger, in addition to other unspecified damages, fees and costs. On November 6, 2014, the Company, each of its directors, Actavis W.C. Holding and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Campbell, Kansagara, Stein, and Pelpola Actions (together the "Actions"), which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of the Actions. As explained in the MOU, the Company and each of the other defendants have agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the burden and uncertainty of continued litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a settlement agreement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought by or on behalf of the plaintiff or any member of the plaintiff class challenging any aspect of the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), among other claims. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that they will seek to negotiate the plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor, which the defendants may oppose. The Company or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The parties may not ultimately enter into a settlement agreement and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware may not approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such settlement agreement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. The settlement will not affect the consideration to be received by the Company's stockholders in connection with the Offer and the Merger. The Company and the other defendants believe the Actions are without merit and, in the event that the MOU is not approved or the requisite conditions are not satisfied, intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Durata Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics for patients with infectious diseases and acute illnesses. EL POLLO: Faces Class Action by Former Employee in Orange, Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, 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 24, 2014, that around February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies included compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint. "We were served with the complaint on March 3, 2014. While we intend to vigorously defend against this action, including its class certification, its ultimate outcome is presently not determinable, as it is in a preliminary phase. Thus, we cannot determine the likelihood of an adverse judgment nor a likely range of damages, if any. A settlement or adverse judgment could have a material adverse impact," the Company said. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.'s activities are conducted principally through its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc. ("EPL"), which develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the name El Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one business segment. ELEKTA BUSINESS: Recalls Mosaiq (2014-11-07) -------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 7, 2014 Posting date: November 18, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42135 Recalled Products: Mosaiq (2014-11-07) Depending on Mosaiq and windows operating system settings, a problem can exist in Mosaiq resulting in the display of an incorrect decimal symbol and/or unintended modification of numeric data by factors of 10 (multiplication by 10, 100, 1000, etc.). Inconsistencies may also occur in date and time formats. Companies: Manufacturer Elekta Business Area Software Systems IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. 100 Mathilda Place, 5th floor Sunnyvale 94086 California United States ELI LILLY: Sued Over Injuries Arising From Cymbalta Withdrawal -------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa D. Carpenter and Jeffrey D. Carpenter v. Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00540-AJ (D.N.H., December 3, 2014) alleges personal injuries and damages the Plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of Lilly's failure to provide adequate instructions for stopping Cymbalta and an adequate warning that fully and accurately informed her about the frequency, severity, or duration of symptoms associated with Cymbalta withdrawal. Cymbalta, generically known as duloxetine, is a prescription antidepressant manufactured, marketed and sold by Lilly. Eli Lilly and Company is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. Lilly is a pharmaceutical company involved in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of numerous pharmaceutical products, including Cymbalta. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leslie C. Nixon, Esq. NIXON, VOGELMAN, BARRY, SLAWSKY & SIMONEAU, PA 77 Central Street Manchester, NH 03101 Telephone: (603) 669-7070 E-mail: lcnixon56@gmail.com FAST EVICTION: Violates TCPA in California, Class Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Ati Mogadam, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Fast Eviction Service a/k/a Fast Eviction Services, a/k/a Ma's Fast Eviction Service, Case No. 8:14-cv-01912-JVS-RNB (C.D. Cal., December 2, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason A. Ibey, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Wegh, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07000 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 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 FIRST STEP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benbion Goldberg, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. First Step Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 07021 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) is brought for 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 FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mordechai Freilich, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Focus Receivables Management, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07058 (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating 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 FORD: Recalls Transit Model Due to Fuel Filter Mounting Bracket --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 3 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014500 TC ID number: 2014500 Manufacturer recall number: 14S23 On certain long wheel base Jumbo Van vehicles equipped with a diesel engine, the fuel filter mounting bracket may detach from the frame crossmember, causing a knocking noise. This could limit fuel supply to the engine, potentially resulting in reduced power, engine stalling and inability to restart the engine after a stall. These issues could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the fuel filter attachment point and install a reinforcement plate. Affected products: 2015 Ford Transit FORD: Recalls Transit Connect Model Due to Potential Fuel Leak -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 2359 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014501TC ID number: 2014501 Manufacturer recall number: 14S24 On certain vehicles, fuel lines may have been improperly routed and may wear over time, potentially causing a fuel leak. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, correct fuel line routing. Affected products: 2014 Ford Transit Connect FOREST RIVER: Recalls Salem and Wildwood Models ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Label Units affected: 8 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014518TC ID number: 2014518 On certain travel trailers, the certification label may not contain the correct Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). The GAWR is correctly stated as 1,588 kg (3,500 lbs) however the number of axles was represented as two instead of one axle. Therefore the GVWR was incorrectly stated as 3,397 kg (7,489 lbs). The correct GVWR is 1,809 kg (3,989 lbs). Incorrect GVWR could result in overloading, potentially causing damage to trailer and affecting vehicle handling. This could increase the risk of a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Updated labels will be mailed to owners of affected trailers. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- FOREST RIVER WILDWOOD 2014 FOREST RIVER SALEM 2014 FOX HILL: Recalls Underprocessed Cheese House Quark --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 5, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Fox Hill Cheese House Distribution: Nova Scotia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9409 Affected products: Fox Hill Cheese House Cranberry Quark and Plain Quark with UPC starting 200166 70 and 200160 30 respectively FRED DEELEY: Recalls Softail Slim Model --------------------------------------- Starting date: November 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 503 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014516TC ID number: 2014516 Manufacturer recall number: 0618 Certain motorcycles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. If one of the front turn signal bulbs stops functioning, no indication would be provided to the driver, which is contrary to the requirements of the standard. Correction: Dealers will update vehicle software. Affected products: 2014, 2015 Harley-Davidson Softail Slim GAMBRO RENAL: Recalls Polyflux Revaclear Dialyzers (2014-11-12) --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 12, 2014 Posting date: November 21, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42231 Recalled products: Polyflux Revaclear Dialyzers There is a possibility of a tear in the individual packaging on some Polyflux Revaclear / Polyflux Revaclear Max Dialyzers. This was noticed during internal inspection and it is possible that the packaging on distributed product could also be impacted. Companies: Manufacturer Gambro Renal Products Inc - Opelika Facility 1101 Jeter Avenue Opelika 36801 Alabama United States GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra and Silverado Models --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 7, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 112 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014509TC ID number: 2014509 Manufacturer recall number: 14743 Certain vehicles may experience a sudden loss of power steering assist that could occur at any time while driving. If the power steering assist is lost, a message is displayed on the Driver Information Centre and a chime sounds to inform the driver. Steering control can be maintained, as the vehicle will revert to a manual steering mode, but will require greater driver effort particularly at low vehicle speeds. The sudden change in steering may increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the power steering assist motor. Affected products: 2015 GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Impala Model ------------------------------------ Starting date: November 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 1977 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014514TC ID number: 2014514 Manufacturer recall number: 14330 Certain vehicles may experience an intermittent or lasting loss or reduction of power steering assist. If the power steering assist is lost or reduced, a message is displayed on the Driver Information Centre and a chime sounds to inform the driver. Steering control can be maintained, as the vehicle will revert to a manual steering mode, but will require greater driver effort particularly at low vehicle speeds. The sudden change in steering effort may increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will repair an electrical ground connection at the power steering control module and update software. Affected products: 2014 Chevrolet Impala GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Pearl Ehrnfeld, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation f/k/a Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07023 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating 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 HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hill" Suit in Northern District of Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- Harold E. Hill, Michele Jhingoor, Bruce Holdridge, Scott McGiffid and James M. Burden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-03845-LMM (N.D. Ga., December 2, 2014) is brought over alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON COLE 320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 588-3400 E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com - and - Darren W. Pennsylvania, Esq. James M. Evangelista, Esq. Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq. HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP 400 Colony Square, Suite 900 1201 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 961-7650 Facsimile: (404) 961-7651 E-mail: darren@hpllegal.com jim@hpllegal.com jeff@hpllegal.com HSS INC: Removes "Scott" Suit to Central District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Scott v. HSS Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2014-00754097-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01911 to the proceeding. The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Martin Sonne, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: msonne@sheppardmullin.com IMMUCOR INC: Recalls TPHA Screen (2014-11-12) --------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 12, 2014 Posting date: November 20, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42195 Recalled Products: TPHA Screen Immucor is investigating reports of unexpected positive reactions with the TPHA screen assay performed on the Neo and Galileo instruments. The investigation to date has identified a shift in performance with the TPHA screen associated with higher rates of unexpected positive reactions. Companies: Manufacturer Immucor Inc. 3130 Gateway Drive, PO Box 5625 Norcross 30091-5625 Georgia United States INTELLIGENDER LLC: Case to Have Implications on CAFA Settlements ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit may make it more difficult to settle class action lawsuits where there is a potential for parallel government enforcement action. In California v. IntelliGender, LLC, No. 13-56806, 2014 WL 5786718, at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014), the Ninth Circuit specifically addressed the State's right to pursue a state court lawsuit against a company that had settled a nationwide class action involving the same basic claims, though seeking broader relief than that afforded in the settlement. The private class settlement involved restitution payments to the settlement class and was approved by the federal court. As part of the approval process, the defendant provided notice of the proposed settlement to appropriate state and federal officials as required under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The State did not object to the settlement, but later sued the company in state court seeking civil remedies, injunctive relief and restitution. The defendant asked the federal court to enjoin the state lawsuit under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2283, and that motion was denied. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit engaged in a detailed analysis of the text and case law arising under the Anti-Injunction Act, concluding that the State's claims for civil penalties and injunctive relief were not barred because they did not involve "identical parties or privies." The Ninth Circuit, however, ruled that the State could not seek restitution on behalf of class members who already had settled their restitution claims, finding that allowing that relief would provide for a double recovery and would interfere with the federal court's enforcement and administration of the class action settlement. "When a government entity sues for the same relief that 'plaintiff [has] already pursued then the requisite closeness of interests for privity is present.'" IntelliGender, 2014 WL 5786718, at *7 (quoting Leon v. IDX Systems Corp, 464 F.3d 951, 962 (9th Cir. 2006)). This case is significant and has potentially positive and negative implications for businesses settling CAFA class actions. On the one hand, it is a positive development in the law given that governmental entities lose the ability to double dip and seek the same form of recovery provided in a class settlement where, as here, they do not successfully object to the settlement. Of course, the negative corollary is that governmental entities are likely to watch these settlements more closely and may appear more frequently in the settlement approval process, perhaps even seeking some additional compensation for the class or as attorney's fees for "improving" upon class settlements. INTERTHINX INC: Deal With Auditors & Underwriters Has Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert E. Blackburn granted preliminary approval of a class and collective action settlement, and certification of settlement classes in the case captioned CELESTE SHAW; JUDITH VERHEECKE; SHABNAM SHEILA DEHDASHTIAN; MEDHAT GAREEB; and DEJAN NAGL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERTHINX, INC., a California Corporation; and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-01229-REB-BNB, (D. Col.). The Settlement Agreement resolves claims of four proposed settlement classes of Auditors and Underwriters (Aus) employed by Interthinx: (a) those employed in Colorado between May 9, 2010, and June 30, 2014 ("Colorado Class"); (b) those employed in California between June 28, 2009, and June 30, 2014 ("California Class"); (c) those employed in Missouri between May 9, 2010, and June 30, 2014 ("Missouri Class"); and (d) those employed in any other state between May 9, 2010, and June 30, 2014 and who are not members of the California, Colorado, or Missouri Classes ("FLSA Class"). These AUs allege that defendants violated a number of California, Colorado, Missouri, and federal wage and hour laws by, among other things, failing to pay them overtime compensation. The California, Colorado, Missouri, and FLSA Classes are certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 206 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), for settlement purposes only, ruled the Court. Plaintiff Celeste Shaw, is appointed class representative for the Colorado Class; plaintiff Judith Verheecke, is appointed class representative for the Missouri Class; plaintiffs Shabnam Sheila Dehdashtian, Medhat Gareeb, and Dejan Nagl, are appointed class representatives for the California Class; and plaintiffs Celeste Shaw, Judith Verheecke, Shabnam Sheila Dehdashtian, Medhat Gareeb, and Dejan Nagl, are appointed class representatives for the FLSA Class. Plaintiffs' counsel is appointed class counsel for the California, Colorado, Missouri, and FLSA Classes. Dahl Administration, LLC, is appointed Settlement Administrator of the Settlement Classes and will complete, to the extent reasonably practicable, the mailing of the notice and claim forms in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The parties must file motions in support of final approval of the settlement, and class counsel must file their motion for an award of attorney fees, expense reimbursements, and incentive award payment for plaintiffs within 21 days after the end of the claims period. Within 14 days of the deadline for class members to submit objections, class counsel and defendants may file a response to any objection or comment pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Any member of the Settlement Classes who wishes to be excluded from the settlement must postmark and mail the exclusion no later than 52 days after the Settlement Administrator originally mails the Notice and Claim Form to class members, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A hearing to consider final approval of the proposed settlement, and class counsels' requests for fees, expense reimbursement, and incentive award payment is set for Friday, April 3, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. MDT. The settlement provides a maximum settlement amount of $6,000,000, plus a payment of the employer's share of payroll taxes. If the court approves all requested payments provided in the Settlement Agreement for attorneys' fees ($2,000,000), litigation costs (less than $95,000), service payments to the named and deposed opt-in plaintiffs ($55,000 total), administrative costs of the Settlement Administrator (estimated by proposed Settlement Administrator Dahl to be no more than $20,000), and a payment to the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") ($20,000), then a total of $2.19 million will be deducted from the Settlement Amount, leaving a maximum net settlement amount $3.81 million -- that is, $6 million (the maximum settlement amount) minus $2.19 million (in requested payments). Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the minimum amount to be distributed to class members is 75% of the net settlement amount, or $2,857,500. The minimum total settlement value, therefore, is $5,047,500 [$2,857,500 + $2,190,000]. A copy of the Court's November 21, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/OFEurZfrom Leagle.com. Celeste Shaw, Plaintiff, represented by Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh -- caroline@spivaklaw.com -- Spivak Law Firm, David Glenn Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com -- Spivak Law Firm, Jessica Lee Riggin -- jriggin@rhdtlaw.com -- Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, Steven M. Tindall -- steventindall@rhdtlaw.com -- Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, and: Michael Dickson Kuhn, Esq. Andrew Edward Swan, Esq. Paul Forrest Lewis, Esq. LEWIS KUHN SWAN PC 620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: (719) 694-3000 - and - Rowdy Byron Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP, LLC 10601 Mission Road, Suite 100 Leawood, KS 66206 Telephone: 913-766-5585 Toll Free: 877-783-4729 Facsimile: 816-875-5069 Judith Verheecke, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm, David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm, Jessica Lee Riggin, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, Paul Forrest Lewis, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC & Steven M. Tindall, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP. Shabnam Sheila Dehdashtian, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm & David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm. Dejan Nagl, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm & David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm. Medhat Gareeb, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm & David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm. Verisk Analytics Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Anthony Murray -- Nicholas.Murray@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Angela Quiles Nevarez -- Angela.Nevarez@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Leila Nourani -- Leila.Nourani@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP, Nicky Jatana -- JatanaN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP & Peter Francis Munger -- peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C. Interthinx Inc, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Anthony Murray, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Angela Quiles Nevarez, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Leila Nourani, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Nicky Jatana, Jackson Lewis, LLP & Peter Francis Munger, Jackson Lewis, P.C. INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- Intralinks Holdings, 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 entered the parties' scheduling stipulation, which extended the deadline to complete fact discovery to February 27, 2015 in a Securities Class Action. On December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The initial complaint (the "Wallace Complaint") alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions about the Company's business prospects, financial condition and performance in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from February 17, 2011 through November 10, 2011 (the "Allegation Period"). On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint, which makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers seeking similar unspecified compensatory damages for the Allegation Period. On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action ("Consolidated Class Action"). On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint ("Consolidated Class Action Complaint"), that in addition to the original allegations made in the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in Intralinks' April 6, 2011 stock offering issued a registration statement and prospectus in connection with the offering that contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material information required to be stated therein in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The defendants filed their motions to dismiss on July 31, 2012. On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On October 15, 2013, the Court entered the parties' pretrial scheduling stipulation. In December 2013, the parties served each other with document requests and discovery is ongoing. On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class certification. Pursuant to an amended scheduling order entered by the Court on April 18, 2014, the defendants filed their opposition to class certification on June 13, 2014, and plaintiff filed its reply on July 18, 2014. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and a subclass of persons who purchased the Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's April 6, 2011 offering. On October 6, 2014, the Court entered the parties' scheduling stipulation, which extended the deadline to complete fact discovery to February 27, 2015. Under that same stipulation, summary judgment briefing must be completed by November 23, 2015. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the September 30, 2014 opinion granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants' petition on October 27, 2014 and, on November 5, 2014, defendants filed a motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to file a reply in further support of their petition. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Intralinks is a global provider of Software-as-a-Service, or SaaS, solutions for secure enterprise content collaboration within and among organizations. IOVATE HEALTH: Obtains Final Approval of Hydroxycut Case Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz granted final approval of a class action settlement in IN RE HYDROXYCUT MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. ANDREW DREMAK, on Behalf of Himself, All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, Plaintiff, v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NOS. 09MD2087 BTM(KSC), 09CV1088 BTM(KSC), (S.D. Cal.). In this consolidated class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs assert consumer injury claims in connection with their purchase of the Hydroxycut Products. The main features of the Settlement are: * $14 million non-reversionary Settlement Fund consisting of a $7 million Cash Component and a $7 million Product Component. * Class members without proof of purchase may elect to receive cash payments of $15 per purchase for up to three purchases. * If money remains in Cash Component (after paying eligible cash claims, notice and claim administration expenses, attorney's fees and expenses, taxes and tax expenses, and service awards) each cash claim will be increased pro rata up to $50 for each product purchased. * If any amounts still remain in the Cash Component, the money will go to ChangeLab Solutions, a non-profit organization that works to combat false and misleading advertising regarding food and nutrition, or a similar organization. * Class members without proof of purchase may elect to receive a free Product Unit for up to three purchases. The Product Unit will have a retail price of at least $25. For each Product Unit Award, class members may choose any one of the following: (1) Hydroxycut Pro Clinical (72 count); (2) Hydroxycut Hardcore (60 count); (3) Hydroxycut Caffeine Free (72 Count); and (4) Hydroxycut Max (60 count). * Amounts remaining in the Product Component will be distributed nationwide in the form of additional product (Pro Clinical Hydroxycut or such other products that are top-selling throughout the United States) at the time of purchase by the consumer. The value of the additional product shall be calculated at the manufacturers' suggested retail price of the regular size Hydroxycut-branded product, less 15%. The additional product will be distributed over an eighteen-month period. Within 60 days of the Effective Date of the Settlement, Iovate will provide Class counsel with a distribution plan regarding the Additional Product and will also provide Class Counsel with a bimonthly distribution report detailing the distribution of Additional Product. * Iovate agrees to not oppose Plaintiffs' counsel's application for attorney's fees not to exceed $3,500,000 and for expenses not to exceed $300,000. Plaintiffs' counsel seeks $3.5 million in attorneys fees and $204,378.21 in costs. * Iovate does not oppose payment of service awards to class representatives in the amount of $2,000 each. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied and certifies the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court further finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Class Counsel, on behalf of themselves and other Plaintiffs' counsel, sought and obtained an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $3.5 million, equal to 25% of the $14 million Settlement Fund. Class Counsel also sought and obtained reimbursement of expenses totaling $202,545.19, incurred by Plaintiffs' Counsel to prosecute this litigation. The Court found that the requested incentive payment of $2,000 for each of the Plaintiffs is reasonable to compensate them for the work done on behalf of the Class. A copy of the Court's November 18, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/PrrG9Gfrom Leagle.com. IQBAL HALAL: Recalls Peek Freans Biscuits Due to Undeclared Milk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Iqbal Halal Foods Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9429 Affected products: Peek Freans Butter Puff Biscuits and The Original Zeera Biscuit JAGUAR: Recalls F-Type Model Due to Wiring Harness Configuration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 816 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014515TC ID number: 2014515 Manufacturer recall number: J047 On certain vehicles, a defect in the occupant classification system wiring could cause the system to fail to detect a child or small stature adult seated in the front passenger seating position, instead detecting an unoccupied seat and disabling the passenger airbag. The defect could also cause the system to fail to detect a child car seat installed in the passenger seat and not disable the passenger airbag. This could increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant in a crash. Correction: Dealers will correct the wiring harness configuration. Affected products: 2014, 2015 Jaguar F-Type KING COUNTY, WA: Superior Court Order in "Dolan" Case Reversed -------------------------------------------------------------- In KEVIN DOLAN, and a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Defendant/Respondent, STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, Appellants, NO. 44982-0-II, DRS appeals two superior court orders entered in a settled class action lawsuit between Kevin Dolan, as representative of a Class of public defenders, and King County. First, DRS appeals the final approval order, which contains findings, conclusions, and rulings approving a settlement between the Class and the County. Second, DRS appeals the order granting DRS only partial intervention. DRS argues that (1) the Administrative Procedure Act1 (APA) removed the superior court's original subject matter jurisdiction to enter orders affecting PERS (Public Employees Retirement System), and that the superior court erred by (2) ruling that its final approval order binds DRS, who was not a party to the settlement and (3) denying DRS's motion to intervene as a "full party," on grounds that DRS's motion to intervene was untimely. Because the superior court erred by ruling that a party is bound to a contract to which it is not a party, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two reversed on November 18, 2014, the final approval order. Moreover, because the superior court erred by basing its partial intervention order on the erroneous legal conclusion that DRS's motion to intervene was untimely, the Washington Appeals Court reversed the partial intervention order. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/GWtDJRfrom Leagle.com. Counsel for Respondents: David Frank Stobaugh, Esq. Stephen Kolden Strong, Esq. Bendich Stobaugh & Strong PC 701 5th Ave Ste 4850 Seattle, WA, 98104-7062 Telephone: (206) 622-3536 Facsimile: (206) 622-5759 - and - Susan Nathalie Slonecker, Esq. King Co Admin Bldg 500 4th Ave Ste 900 Seattle, WA, 98104-2316 - and - Timothy J. Filer, Esq. Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 3rd Ave Ste 3400 Seattle, WA, 98101-3299 Telephone: 206-447-2904 Facsimile: 206-749-1939 E-mail: filet@foster.com - and - Kathryn Carder Mccoy, Esq. Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 3rd Ave Ste 3400 Seattle, WA, 98101-3264 Telephone: 206-447-2880 Facsimile: 206-749-1911 E-mail: cardk@foster.com Counsel for Appellant Intervenors: Jeffrey A.O. Freimund, Esq. Michael E. Tardif, Esq. Freimund Jackson Tardif & Benedict Garra 711 Capitol Way S. Ste 602 Olympia, WA, 98501-1236 E-mail: jefff@fjtlaw.com miket@fjtlaw.com LIFE PARTNERS: SEC Penalties May Hamper Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission managed to salvage enough of its case against Life Partners Holdings Inc. and its executives to eke out a $47 million judgment against them on Dec. 2. That's far less than the $2 billion the agency was seeking from the defendants, which helped pioneer the business of helping investors gamble on other people's life insurance policies. But the award may be more than enough to frustrate plaintiffs lawyers pressing a parallel investor class action against the same defendants. The penalties stem from a jury's finding in February that Life Partners and its execs filed false or misleading reports to the SEC about their "life settlement" business. The jury rejected the SEC's core securities fraud claims in the case, however, and U.S. District Judge James Nowlin in Austin threw out lesser fraud claims after the trial. Judge Nowlin nevertheless levied significant penalties on Dec. 2, ordering fines of $23.7 million against Life Partners, $6.2 million against CEO Brian Pardo and $2 million against general counsel R. Scott Peden. The SEC also won disgorgement of illegal profits from Life Partners in the amount of $15 million. Even though the SEC failed to prove its allegations that Life Partners systematically misstated life expectancy estimates, the judge ruled, the defendants were guilty of "serious violations" in their regulatory filings. The class action was brought soon after Life Partners revealed that it was under SEC investigation four years ago. In May 2014 U.S. District Judge Alia Moses in Del Rio, Texas, refused to dismiss the plaintiffs' securities fraud claims, handing a key pretrial win to plaintiffs lawyers at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Harwood Feffer and Shields, Britton & Fraser. Thanks to the Dec. 2 decision in the SEC case, however, the investors' early victory may be hollow. The class action lawyers predicted as much back in September, when they told Judge Moses that even a mediocre recovery by the SEC would mean "there will be nothing left for plaintiffs and the class to collect in this action." They asked Moses to stay the class action pending a ruling on the SEC's motion for judgment and penalties, writing that Life Partners had net assets of just $20 million, while Pardo and Peden lacked recoverable assets "to pay a judgment of any significant size." "If the SEC obtains a judgment for more than a nominal amount in response to its motion, none of the defendants will have any material amount of assets subject to execution by plaintiffs and the class, and further litigation of this action will be futile," the lawyers wrote. The judge granted the stay, ruling that the plaintiffs could wait for a ruling in the SEC case and then either move to dismiss the case or seek class certification. The Litigation Daily contacted Steve Berman of Hagens Berman and one of his partners to ask how the plaintiffs will proceed. They didn't immediately respond to the query. Life Partners is represented in the SEC action by Elizabeth Yingling of Baker & McKenzie. Mr. Peden has S. Cass Weiland -- cass.weiland@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton Boggs and Austin solo J. Pete Laney. Mr. Pardo is represented by Jay Ethington in Dallas. In October all three defendants brought in G. Kevin Buchanan of Kevin Buchanan & Associates in Dallas to represent them in the class action, replacing Baker & McKenzie's Yingling. LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls PC Brand Yogurt Products Due to Spoilage ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage) Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9420 MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: February 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. on Nov. 24 issued a statement in regards to the announcement of a proposed class action settlement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., Case No.: 3:13-cv-00580-BEN-RBB SECURITIES LITIGATION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES EXHIBIT A-3 TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC, ("MAXWELL") FROM APRIL 29, 2011 THROUGH MARCH 19, 2013, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"), that the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, as set forth in the full printed Notice Of (I) Pendency Of Class Action, Certification Of Settlement Class, And Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; And (III) Motion For An Award Of Attorneys' Fees And Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED pursuant to an Order of the Court, that a hearing will be held on February 5, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5A before the Honorable Roger B. Benitez at the Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, United States District Court, Southern District of California, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, to determine whether: (1) a proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of claims in the Litigation in exchange for a payment of $3,300,000, as set forth in the October 6, 2014 Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation"), should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation; (3) the plan for distributing the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable and adequate; and (4) the applications for fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and a Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, P.O. Box 4028, Portland, OR 97208-4028; 1-877-283-6564. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.maxwellsecuritieslitigation.com If you purchased or otherwise acquired Maxwell common stock during the period April 29, 2011 through March 19, 2013, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement. You may obtain copies of the Stipulation, the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release by writing to In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, PO Box 4028, Portland, OR 4028, or downloading them at www.maxwellsecuritieslitigation.com You must submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than February 22, 2015 to be eligible for any payment from the Settlement proceeds. You may request to be excluded from the class by following the instructions in the Notice. Any class member who does not timely and validly request exclusion by January 15, 2015 will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation. You may object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the applications for fees and expenses by sending (a) a written statement identifying your name, address, and telephone number, and, if represented by counsel, your counsel's name and contact information; (b) proof of ownership of Maxwell common stock during the Settlement Class Period, including the number of Maxwell shares and the date or dates of purchase; (c) a statement explaining your objection and your reasons for such objection; and (d) any supporting documentation. You must send these materials by first class mail to the following addresses so they are received by JANUARY 15, 2015: The Court Clerk of the Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 221 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Lead Plaintiff's Counsel Lester R. Hooker SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Counsel for Defendants Maxwell, David J. Schramm and Kevin S. Royal Jerome F. Birn, Jr. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Counsel for Defendant Van M. Andrews Roy K. McDonald DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call 877- 283-6564 or contact Lead Plaintiff's Counsel at the address listed above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: November 24, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOURCE: Saxena White P.A. Saxena White P.A. Lester R. Hooker, 561-206-6708 lhooker@saxenawhite.com MOL GLOBAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 24 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against MOL Global, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv- 09357, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased MOL Global securities between October 9, 2014 and November 20, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased MOL Global securities during the Class Period, you have until January 23, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. MOL Global, Inc., through its subsidiary, MOL AccessPortal Sdn. Bhd., provides e-payment solutions for online goods and services in Southeast Asia. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to MOLG investors that: (1) MOLG was overstating the revenue and profit derived from MOLG's business and operations; (2) MOLG's actual business model could not sustain the growth trends described in the Offering Documents; (3) MOLG would not be able to report its third quarter 2014 financial results on November 21, 2014, as previously stated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, MOLG's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 3, 2014, MOLG filed its amended Registration Statement for the IPO, which became effective on October 8, 2014. Pursuant to the IPO, 13,500,000 ADSs were sold, consisting of 7,485,030 ADSs offered by the Company and 6,014,970 ADSs offered by certain selling shareholders of the Company, at the price to the public of $12.50 per ADS. On November 20, 2014, prior to the opening of the market, Deutsche Bank, which had previously assisted in the Company's IPO, assumed coverage on MOL in a research note setting a "buy" recommendation and a $12.00 price target on the stock. Deutsche Bank's price objective pointed to a potential upside of 49.44% from the ADSs' previous close. On November 20, 2014, after the market closed, little more than forty days after the Company's IPO, MOLG announced "that the Company has rescheduled the date it plans to release its third quarter 2014 financial results to Wednesday, December 3, 2014 before market opens." The Company had previously announced that it would issue the results on November 21, 2014. Shockingly, the Company also announced after the CFO had abruptly resigned "for personal reasons." On November 21, 2014, just a day after issuing a "buy" recommendation, Deutsche Bank advised investor caution about shares in MOLG, describing MOL's sudden announcement as "potentially ominous." On this news, shares of MOLG declined $4.77 per share, or almost 54%, to close at $4.09 per share on November 21, 2014, on unusually heavy volume. This represented a 67% decline in MOLG's ADS price from the IPO price of $12.50. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com MVK GROCERY: Removes "Sanchez" Suit to Florida District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Sanchez v. MVK Grocery, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-25611-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24549-KMM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick Victor Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 1250 South Pine Island Road, Suite 375 Plantation, FL 33324-4454 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Leslie W. Langbein, Esq. LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN 8181 NW 154 Street, Suite 105 Miami Lakes, FL 33016 Telephone: (305) 556-3663 Facsimile: (305) 556-3647 E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Former Athletes File Class Action in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three former college athletes are the latest to file a class action lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association, claiming it and 11 athletic conferences have created "monopsony" power over college athletes. Kenyata Johnson, Barry Brunetti and D.J. Stephens filed their complaint Nov. 19 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It alleges the defendants have unlawfully agreed that no college will pay an athlete any amount that exceeds the value of an athletic scholarship. Ms. Johnson was a linebacker on the University of Memphis' football team, while Stephens played for the same school's basketball team. Mr. Brunetti, a native of Memphis, originally attended West Virginia University on a football scholarship but transferred to the University of Mississippi in 2011. "(The defendants) collectively share 'monopsony' power over college athletes," the complaint says. "The NCAA and its members are 'the only game in town' when it comes to compensating college athletes for their services. "In enacting the challenged restraint, the NCAA and its members have the ultimate power to artificially depress compensation to college athletes. If a top-tier athlete doesn't like it, he or she essentially has no reasonably close alternative. That is the nature of a monopsony. "Instead of a free market, a market controlled by a monopsonist is a 'take it or leave it' market." Representing the plaintiffs are L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher in Walnut Creek, Calif., and Bryan L. Clobes of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel in Philadelphia. In a separate filing, those attorneys ask that the new class action be designated as related to nine other antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and one against Electronic Arts. Among those lawsuits is the one brought by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon. In August, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of Mr. O'Bannon, deciding the NCAA's rules unreasonably restrain trade. Also among the lawsuits is Keller vs. Electronic Arts. In it, former Arizona State University quarterback Sam Keller sued EA for using his likeness in a video game without paying him, and the case was combined with O'Bannon's. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled EA couldn't claim First Amendment protections, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. EA paid $40 million to settle the case. "Relating this action to the above-listed actions will promote substantial efficiency and judicial economy," the Johnson attorneys wrote. "Judge Wilken has presided over the Keller and O'Bannon actions since 2009 and is intimately familiar with the NCAA's rules and regulations relating to college athletics. "The Johnson action . . . concerns similar questions with respect to class certification and liability, and will likely involve overlapping witnesses, experts and discovery." NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chana Goldberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07045 (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) seeks relief over alleged violations of 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 NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Eli Ashkenazi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07505-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., December 3, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 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 NEVADA PROPERTY: Significant Discovery Commenced in Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Significant discovery has commenced and depositions have occurred in a class action lawsuit over Alleged Unlawful Taping/Recording, Nevada Property 1 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. A purported class action lawsuit was filed during the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012 in Superior Court in the State of California against the Company, alleging violation of the California Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording of calls. On August 31, 2012, the Company moved the case to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Subsequently, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to strike the class allegations. On July 15, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order denying these motions. Significant discovery has commenced and depositions have occurred, but no motions to certify a class or subclasses have been filed. All discovery that relates to class certification issues must be completed by January 2015 and the plaintiff must file a motion for class certification by March 2015. The Company will file its opposition to any motion for class certification by April 2015. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California will set a pretrial schedule after its ruling on the class certification motion. "Substantial questions of law and fact are unresolved. Specific additional factors applicable to this case that prevent the Company from providing an estimate of reasonably possible loss or range of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether class certification will be granted and the scope of any class or subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages claimed by the purported class are unspecified or indeterminate; and (3) the outcome of any future settlement negotiations, should they occur, as they may apply to limit the class or eliminate all class claims. As a result, the Company cannot at this time determine the potential impact of the lawsuit on the consolidated financial position, cash flows, or results of operations of the Company. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to this matter and intends to defend its position vigorously," the COmpany said. "Given the uncertainty of the procedural and substantive legal and factual matters set forth above, no estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time with respect to the wage and hour and alleged unlawful taping/recording purported class action lawsuits, nor can the Company determine when it will be able to make such an estimate. Our assessment of these matters may change based on future unexpected events. An unexpected adverse judgment could cause a material impact on our business operations, results of operations or financial position. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we believe costs associated with litigation will not have a material impact on our financial position or liquidity, but may be material to the results of operations in any given period." Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commenced operations on December 15, 2010. NEVADA PROPERTY: Formal Dismissal Order Entered in Hotel Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Nevada Property 1 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 a purported class action lawsuit was filed on or about August 26, 2013, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Lenny Spangler v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et al., alleging, among other things, that former class action settlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominium hotel units in the project were fraudulently induced, and seeking to recover all amounts paid to or retained by the Company in such settlements. During 2014, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case in exchange for a waiver and release by the Company of its claims for costs related to the lawsuit. A formal order of dismissal was subsequently entered with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commenced operations on December 15, 2010. NEVADA PROPERTY: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Hotel Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Nevada Property 1 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 Company submitted a motion to compel binding arbitration in a Condominium Hotel litigation. At December 31, 2013, there were two condominium hotel units remaining under contract at The Cosmopolitan (the "Okada Unit" and the "Mastej Unit"). During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company prevailed in its efforts to confirm and enforce prior arbitration awards for each of the Okada Unit and the Mastej Unit. As such, the applicable earnest money deposits were released to the Company. On or about March 3, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Donald Okada v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et al., alleging, among other things, that former class action settlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominium hotel units in the project were fraudulently induced thus permitting the plaintiff to recover the full earnest money deposit and related attorney fees. During July 2014, the complaint against the Company was dismissed without prejudice and the plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. On or about July 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Subsequently, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Company's motion to transfer venue of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. In October 2014, the Company submitted a motion in the case to compel the matter to binding arbitration. With respect to the Mastej Unit, on or about April 1, 2014, a Notice of Appeal was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court regarding the grant of the Company's motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award. That matter is in the earliest stages of proceedings. Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commenced operations on December 15, 2010. NEVADA PROPERTY: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Nevada Property 1 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 motion by the Company to decertify the one conditionally certified class and for summary judgment and dismissal in a wage and hour class action, and the motion by the Plaintiff to certify all classes of employees under the federal rules remain pending at this time. During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served with two separate purported class action lawsuits related to alleged unpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars' while on Property for donning and doffing of the CoStars' required uniform, alleged improper rounding of time for hours worked and various other claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of the purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada State Court"), and one is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The discovery period as to liability has closed in both cases. In 2014, the plaintiffs' in the Nevada State Court action filed a motion to certify all proposed classes. Additionally, in June 2014, the plaintiffs' filed various liens against the Property. The Company has opposed the motion to certify all classes and filed motions for summary judgment and dismissal. In September 2014, the Nevada State Court ordered the plaintiffs' liens to be expunged. No decisions on the dispositive motions have been issued. With respect to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada actions, during 2014, the Company filed a motion to decertify the one conditionally certified class and for summary judgment and dismissal. Plaintiff filed a motion to certify all classes of employees under the federal rules. All of these motions remain pending at this time. The Company said, "During the second quarter of 2013, as part of an ongoing assessment of our wage and hour cases, we accrued an estimated loss contingency of $3.0 million (reported as a corporate operating expense in the condensed consolidated statement of operations beginning with the June 30, 2013 quarterly reporting period). A portion of the loss contingency was utilized in the October 2013 settlement of a third purported wage and hour class action matter, with subsequent payment occurring during the first quarter of 2014. We will continue evaluating the adequacy of this accrual as the cases develop. Specific additional factors applicable to each case that prevent the Company from providing an estimate of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued or range of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether class certification will be granted and the scope of any class or subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages claimed by the purported classes and subclasses asserted in separate, but overlapping litigation are unspecified or indeterminate; and (3) the outcome of any future settlement negotiations, should they occur, as they may apply to limit the class or eliminate all class claims. Legal fees associated with the cases are recognized as incurred when the legal services are rendered, and are, therefore, not recognized as part of the loss contingency accrual." The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to the remaining open matters and intends to defend its positions vigorously. Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commenced operations on December 15, 2010. NEW YORK CITY, NY: Accused of Discrimination Due to Disability -------------------------------------------------------------- Luis F. Pena-Barrero v. The City of New York, Keith Kerman, Steve Weir, Frank Dazzo and John and Jane Doe (said names being fictitious, the persons intended being those who aided and abetted the unlawful conduct of the named defendants) Case No. 1:14-cv- 09550 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) is an action for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment and money damages to remedy discrimination on the basis of disability, race and national origin. Mr. Pena-Barrero is a Hispanic male of Colombian national origin. He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Philosophy from York College and a Juris Doctor Degree from Touro College. He is a military veteran, who was honorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps Reserve, in May 1993. He suffers from and has been diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder, a psychological or mental impairment. He worked for the City in the Fleet Services Unit of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services before being unlawfully terminated in October 2012. The Unit is responsible for overseeing and managing City-owned vehicles. The City of New York is a municipal corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York. The Individual Defendants were the Plaintiff's supervisors and are employed by the City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel O. Maduegbuna, Esq. MADUEGBUNA COOPER LLP 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 232-0155 E-mail: sam.m@mcande.com NHA TRANG: Recalls Beef Balls Due to Listeria Monocytogenes ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Nha Trang Deli Inc. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail, Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9450 Nha Trang Deli Inc. is recalling Beef Balls from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 454 g. Nha Trang Deli Inc Beef Balls with best before dates from 14 11 27 to 14 12 05, inclusively and 20 lb. Beef Balls sold between Oct. 31 and Nov. 2, 2014 NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Abrantes" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Jogert Abrantes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv- 05311-DMR (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2014) alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Suren Naradha Weerasuriya, Esq. Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Drive, #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Accord in "Toth" Case Awaits Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Northwest Bancshares, 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 proposed settlement in the case Toth v. Northwest Savings Bank is subject to preliminary and final court approval. On May 7, 2012, Ashley Toth ("Plaintiff") filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against Northwest Savings Bank ("Northwest"). Plaintiff's complaint alleged state law claims related to Northwest's order of posting ATM and debit card transactions and the assessment of overdraft fees on deposit customer accounts. Northwest filed preliminary objections to the putative class action complaint on June 29, 2012. On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint containing substantially the same allegations as the initial putative class action complaint. On November 5, 2012, Northwest filed preliminary objections to the amended putative class action complaint. Plaintiff filed her opposition to Northwest's preliminary objections on December 6, 2012, and Northwest filed its reply in support of the preliminary objections on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the court entered an order, granting in part and overruling in part, Northwest's preliminary objections. On November 18, 2013, the parties participated in a mediation and reached an agreement in principle, subject to the preparation and execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and release, to fully, finally and completely settle, resolve, discharge and release all claims that have been or could have been asserted in the action on a class-wide basis. The proposed settlement contemplates that, in return for a full and complete release of claims by Plaintiff and the settlement class members, Northwest will create a settlement fund for distribution to the settlement class members after certain court-approved reductions, including for attorney's fees and expenses. The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval. Northwest Bancshares, a Maryland corporation headquartered in Warren, Pennsylvania, is a savings and loan holding company regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. OMEGA FOOD: Recalls Marco Polo Chocolate Covered Wafer Bars ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 10, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Omega Food Importers Co. Ltd. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9440 OSOLEO WILDCRAFTERS: Recalls Unpasteurized Cranberry-Apple Cider ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 4, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - E. coli O157 Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Osoleo Wildcrafters Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail The food recall warning issued on Nov. 3, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Osoleo Wildcrafters is recalling Osoleo Wildcrafters brand unpasteurized Cranberry-Apple Cider from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products described. These products have been sold from Oct. 10, 2014 to Oct. 12, 2014, inclusively, at The Mustard Seed Cooperative Grocery located at 460 York Boulevard in Hamilton, Ontario. Check to see if you have the products in your home. If the products are in your home, do not consume them. Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody diarrhea. In severe cases of illness, some people may have seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis or live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness, people may die. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by findings by the CFIA during its investigation into a foodborne illness outbreak. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. PACKERS SANITATION: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles D. Talbert v. Packers Sanitation Services, Inc., and Brandon Wakefield, individually and on behalf of Packers Sanitation Services, Inc., jointly and severally, Case No. 2:14- cv-14550-VAR-MJH (E.D. Mich., December 2, 2014) alleges that PSSI refused to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff for the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week. PSSI is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Kieler, Wisconsin. PSSI provides contract sanitation services to the food industry, which services are provided on-site at the customer's facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tarra L. Talbert, Esq. 114 Clarence Street Holly, MI 48442 Telephone: (248) 820-3170 E-mail: Tarra@Talbert-Law.com PEET'S OPERATING: Retaliated Against 87-Year-Old-Man, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Conway v. Peet's Operating Company, Inc.; Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc.; Robyn Hallin; Ms. Doe Ruiz; and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 4:14-cv-05281-KAW (N.D. Cal., December 2, 2014) involves the Defendants' alleged discriminatory retaliation against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, an 87 year old man, is a qualified disabled person under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and related state laws because of his asthma. He alleges that because he complained that the Defendants' employee was sweeping dust in his direction, making it difficult to breathe, the Defendants ordered him to stay away from their public accommodation and to never return. Peet's Operating Company, Inc. and Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. are the owners and operators and lessees of the Peet's Coffee & Tea store, located in Oakland (Montclair Village), California. Robyn Hallin is a manager of Peet's Coffee & Tea. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul L. Rein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN 200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-5001 Facsimile: (510) 832-4787 E-mail: reinlawoffice@aol.com RAGAN & RAGAN: Illegally Collects Consumer Debts, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Michelson, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated consumers v. Ragan & Ragan, P.C. & Unifund CCR Partners, Case No. 3:14-cv-07476-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., December 2, 2014) arises out of alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by the Defendants and their collection agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from the Plaintiff. Based in Wall, New Jersey, Ragan & Ragan, P.C. is a debt collection law firm and New Jersey business entity engaged in business of collecting consumer debts. Unifund CCR Partners, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, is a debt collection agency and Ohio business entity engaged in business of collecting consumer debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER, P.C. 120 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 300 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (201) 461-0059 Facsimile: (201) 608-7116 E-mail: david@lupoloverlaw.com RALEIGH RESTAURANT: Holden Case Parties to Proceed to Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE HOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. RALEIGH RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC. Defendant, NO. 5:14-CV-348-F, (E.D. N.C.) is before the court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or to Stay and to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss all Class and Collective Action Allegations. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave of File Sur- Reply. Ms. Holden filed her collective and class action on June 13, 2014, alleging that Raleigh Restaurant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA), N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 95- 25.1, et seq. In an order entered November 20, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/0OnwjGfrom Leagle.com, Senior District Judge James C. Fox allowed in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or to Stay and to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss all Class and Collective Action Allegations. To the extent the Motion seeks to compel arbitration, the Motion is allowed and the proceeding will be stayed pending arbitration. The Court directed the parties to submit a status report of the arbitration proceedings no later than 90 days from the filing date of the order, and every 90 days thereafter, until such proceedings are concluded. To the extent the Motion seeks to dismiss all class and collective action allegations, the Motion is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply was denied. Leslie Holden, Plaintiff, represented by: David W. Hodges, Esq. Kennedy Hodges, LLP 711 West Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: 713-489-9493 Toll Free: 800-391-9935 Facsimile: 713-523-1116 - and - Todd R. Ellis, Esq. Law Office of Todd Ellis, PA 7911 Broad River Road, Suite 100 Irmo, SC 29063 Toll Free: 1-877-440-4146 or 803-732-0123 Raleigh Restaurant Concepts Inc, Defendant, represented by Allan S. Rubin -- RubinA@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Patricia L. Holland -- patricia.holland@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & Bradley J. Shafer -- brad@bradshaferlaw.com -- Shafer & Associates, P.C. RIPTIDE BY THE BAY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Lee, Amber Groves, Christopher Wenzel, Adair Atkinson, Mandy Merchant and Erin O'Connor v. Riptide By The Bay, Inc., Meredith Rippel, Roger R. Rippel, Jr., and RRR 1 Investments LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03762 (D. Md., December 2, 2014) is a civil action for unpaid wages, damages, and relief provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Riptide By The Bay, Inc., a Maryland corporation, owns and operates Riptide By The Bay restaurant in Baltimore City, Maryland (in the Fells Point area). Riptide is owned and operated by Defendants Meredith Rippel and Roger R. Rippel Jr. RRR 1 Investments LLC is a limited liability corporation formed under the laws of Maryland by Mr. Rippel to hold, manage, and to operate the real estate where Riptide By The Bay, Inc. performs sales and employs employees. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard Benjamin Hoffman, Esq. HOWARD B. HOFFMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 304 Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (301) 251-3752 Facsimile: (301) 251-3753 E-mail: HHoffman@hoholaw.com - and - Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq. BRADFORD WARBASSE, ATTORNEY AT LAW 401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 337-5411 Facsimile: (410) 938-8668 E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com RSG FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Berel Grunbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. RSG Financial, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07007 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) alleges violations of 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 SALLIE MAE: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in 2 TCPA Cases -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in the cases captioned: JENNIFER ANDREWS and GREGORY ANDREWS, Plaintiffs, v. SALLIE MAE, INC. and DOES 1-100, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-760-CAB (JMA), (S.D. Cal.) NICHOLAS ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. SALLIE MAE, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-2262-CAB (JMA), (S.D. Cal.) Jennifer Andrews and Gregory Andrews were parties to the putative class action filed by Mark Arthur on February 2, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against SLM Corporation, d/b/a Sallie Mae, for violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The named parties in Arthur signed an Amended Settlement Agreement in October 2011. The Agreement states that "[a]ny Settlement Class Member who has not submitted or does not submit a valid and timely Revocation Request will be deemed to have provided prior express consent to the making of Calls by Sallie Mae or any other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation to any phone numbers reflected in such entities' records." Jennifer and Gregory are members of the Arthur settlement class. They did not opt out of the class settlement or submit a Revocation Request. On September 17, 2012, the Arthur court entered its order and final judgment approving the settlement. Meanwhile, Nicholas Andrews filed his complaint in state court on August 15, 2013. He sues Sallie Mae, Inc. for violation of California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sections 227, and for intrusion. Judge Bencivengo held that to the extent Jennifer and Gregory Andrews assert a TCPA claim arising out of defendant's automated calls to their cell phone made prior to September 17, 2012, the claim is precluded by the Arthur judgment. In addition, plaintiffs are deemed to have given their prior express consent to defendant's automated calls as of September 17, 2012. A genuine dispute of material fact remains as to whether plaintiffs revoked their consent subsequent to September 17, 2012. Judge Bencivengo also held that Nicholas Andrews is deemed to have given his prior express consent to defendant's automated calls as of September 17, 2012. A genuine dispute of material fact remains as to whether plaintiff subsequently revoked his consent. Copies of Court's ruling, dated November 20, 2014, are available at http://is.gd/CYLhbQand http://is.gd/Dz1eoEfrom Leagle.com. Jennifer Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Menard -- jmenard22@gmail.com -- Law Office of Jeffrey R. Menard. Gregory Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Menard, Law Office of Jeffrey R. Menard. Nicholas B. Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Menard, Law Office of Jeffrey R. Menard. Sallie Mae, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian David Roth -- broth@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, L.L.P. & Debbie P Kirkpatrick -- dkirkpatrick@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions Fishman Nathan and Israel. SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Still Faces "Glitz" and "Thornberry" Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sandridge Mississippian Trust I continues to face the class action filed by James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, the Company 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. On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 23, 2013 the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, in which the Trust was named as an additional defendant. The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the Trust and SandRidge and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, including the Trust with respect to certain of the allegations, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves, SandRidge's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with SandRidge's former CEO Tom Ward. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint was corrected by way of a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 30, 2013. The Trust and SandRidge each filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims asserted against the Trust in the Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint. Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. The Trust will estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any such estimates and any final liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different than any estimates. The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any rights it may have to indemnities that may be applicable or any claims it may make in connection with the Securities Litigation. SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces "Herman" Contract-Related Suit in Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Herman, an individual and on behalf of those similarly situated v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 8:14- cv-03028-MSS-EAJ (M.D. Fla., December 3, 2014) arises from alleged contract dispute. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul R. Fowkes, Esq. DISPARTI, FOWKES & HASANBASIC PA 2154 Duck Slough, Suite 101 Trinity, FL 34655-5073 Telephone: (813) 221-0500 Facsimile: (813) 228-7077 E-mail: paul@dispartilaw.com - and - Ryan Christopher Hasanbasic, Esq. DISPARTI FOWKES & HASANBASIC, P.A 1041 US Hwy. 19 Holiday, FL 34691 Telephone: (813) 221-0500 Facsimile: (813) 228-7077 E-mail: rhasanbasic@dispartilaw.com SIMPSON UCHITEL: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations in Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Mitchell and Jane Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Simpson, Uchitel & Wilson, L.L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-03837-AT-JSA (N.D. Ga., December 2, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Marvin Feagle, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 108 East Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 204 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 373-1970 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq. Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP P.O. Box 1478 331 Washington Ave. Marietta, GA 30061 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com krisskaar@aol.com STEPHENS AND MICHAELS: Sued in E.D. New York for Violating FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Mandelbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Stephens and Michaels Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07020 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) seeks relief under 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 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Arizona Owner-Operator Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company continues to face the Arizona Owner- operator Class Action Litigation, the Company 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. On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV7-472 ("the Garza Complaint"). The putative class originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class representative, and because the named owner-operator class representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month period under a one-year contract that no longer exists. In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. In April 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based on statute of limitations. The Company intends to continue to pursue all available appellate relief supported by the record, which the Company believes demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised have no merit. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"). SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Supreme Court Denies Writ of Certiorari ------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company 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 U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari in the Ninth Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action Litigation. On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Swift Transportation and its Interstate Equipment Leasing ("IEL") subsidiary: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("the Sheer Complaint"). The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and various New York and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner- operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the matter has been transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. The District Court further denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class certification. The District Court also denied plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court's September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and thereafter the District Court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010 order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court's September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration alleging that the agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of plaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitration agreements. On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating its prior published decision "expressly held that a district court must determine whether an agreement for arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA as a threshold matter". As a consequence of this determination by the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the district court or arbitrator should determine whether the contract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. On June 16, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any proceedings. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"). SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Calif. Wage, Meal & Rest Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company continues to face California Wage, Meal and Rest Employee Class Actions, the Company 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. On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino ("the Burnell Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which was then pending before the California Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the Brinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the Burnell Complaint was lifted. On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based on alleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in the California Labor Code. On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino ("the Rudsell Complaint"). The Rudsell Complaint has been stayed pending a resolution in the Burnell Complaint. Any claims related to orientation pay in the Rudsell Complaint have been subsumed within the Montalvo v. Swift class action matter. The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and we retain all of our defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the class in both matters, as well as the merits of these matters, should the classes be certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at this time. Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"). SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Montalvo" Minimum Wage Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company continues to face the case, Simona Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego ("the Montalvo Complaint"), the Company 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. On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego ("the Montalvo Complaint"). The Montalvo Complaint was removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV- 1827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to state court and the Company filed an appeal to this remand, which has been denied. The putative class includes employees alleging that candidates for employment within the four-year statutory period in California were not paid the state-mandated minimum wage during their orientation phase. On July 29, 2013, the court certified the class. The Company appealed the class certification and the remand to state court, but on April 10, 2014, the Company's appeal of class certification was denied. The parties participated in mediation in an attempt to economically resolve all claims without having to incur the expense and uncertainty of litigation. As a consequence of ongoing efforts to mediate a resolution, the Company anticipates its exposure to be in the range of $1.0 million to $1.5 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of this matter. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"). SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Calix" Minimum Wage Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company continues to face the case, Jorge Calix on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.: Calix et al. v. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. ("Central") in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino ("the Calix Complaint"), the Company 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. On November 7, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by Jorge Calix on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.: Calix et al. v. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. ("Central") in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino ("the Calix Complaint"). The putative class includes employees alleging that candidates for employment within the four -year statutory period in California were not paid the state-mandated minimum wage during their orientation phase. On December 13, 2013, Central filed an answer denying the allegations. The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of class certification. Central intends to vigorously defend against certification of the class, as well as the merits of this matter, should the class be certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"). SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Peck" Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation 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 September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside ("the Peck Complaint"). The putative class includes current and former non- exempt employee truck drivers who performed services in California within the four-year statutory period alleging that Swift failed to pay for all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses, failed to timely pay wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the class, as well as the merits, should the class be certified. The final disposition of the case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"). SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Slack" Overtime Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation continues to face the case, Troy Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County ("the Slack Complaint"), the Company 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. On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County ("the Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-114380. The putative class includes all current and former Washington State based employee drivers during the three-year statutory period alleging that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they were not properly paid for meals and rest periods. On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as it pertains to dedicated route drivers and did not certify any other class or claims, including any class related to over the road drivers ("OTR Drivers"). The court also further limited the class of dedicated drivers to only those dedicated drivers that either begin or end their shift in the state of Washington and therefore are Washington-based employees. Swift is appealing the limited certification of the Washington dedicated drivers. The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the class, as well as the merits of these matters, should the class be certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"). SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still to Face "Roberts" Minimum Wage Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation continues to face the case, Jacob Roberts and Collective Action Plaintiffs John Does 1-10 v. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer and John Does 1-10 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2;13-ev-00911-EJF ("the Roberts Complaint"), the Company 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. On October 8, 2013, a collective action lawsuit was filed by Jacob Roberts on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer and John Does 1-10: Jacob Roberts and Collective Action Plaintiffs John Does 1-10 v. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer and John Does 1-10 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2;13-ev-00911- EJF ("the Roberts Complaint"). The putative nationwide class includes employees alleging that candidates for employment within the three-year statutory period in Utah were not paid proper compensation pursuant to the FLSA, specifically that the putative collective action plaintiffs were not paid the state-mandated minimum wage for orientation, travel, and training. The issue of collective action certification in the Roberts Complaint must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages, pending a determination of collective action certification. Central intends to vigorously defend against collective action certification, as well as the merits of this matter, should the collective action be certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"). SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Cilluffo" Action in Utah ----------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation continues to face the case, Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf themselves and all similarly situated persons v. Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 ("the Cilluffo Complaint"), the Company 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. On June 1, 2012, a collective and class action complaint was filed by Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes: Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf themselves and all similarly situated persons v. Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 ("the Cilluffo Complaint"). The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Central misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the FLSA, and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises a claim of forced labor and state law contractual claims. On September 24, 2012, the California District Court ordered that the FLSA claim proceed to collective arbitration under the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act ("UUAA") and not the FAA. The September 24, 2012 order directed the arbitrator to determine the validity of proceeding as a collective arbitration under the UUAA, and then if the arbitrator determines that such collective action is permitted, then the arbitrator is to consider the plaintiff's FLSA claim. On November 8, 2012, the California District Court entered a clarification order clarifying that the plaintiff's FLSA claim was to proceed to collective arbitration under the UUAA, but the plaintiff's forced labor claim and state law contractual claims were to proceed as individual arbitrations for those plaintiffs seeking to pursue those specific claims. Central filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for interlocutory appeal of the California District Court's orders, both of which were denied and the claims are proceeding to collective and individual arbitration as originally ordered. On December 9, 2013 the arbitrator determined that the issue of misclassification as it relates to the FLSA will proceed as a collective arbitration, however the plaintiffs forced labor claim and state law claims of contractual misrepresentation and breach of contract must proceed on an individual arbitration basis and not as a class. Central intends to vigorously defend collective arbitration in the Cilluffo Complaint, as well as the merits of the FLSA claim and any individual arbitration matters that are filed, and proceed on the forced labor and state contract law claims. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"). SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Class Suit Alleging Trademark Infringement --------------------------------------------------------------- John W. Ellebracht, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Ellebracht Farms v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01995 (E.D. Mo., December 3, 2014) alleges trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The Plaintiffs are not represented by any law firm. TAKATA CORP: Faces Class Action in BC Over Airbag Defect -------------------------------------------------------- BIV reports that in a proposed class action, Delta resident Reena Rai sued Japanese airbag manufacturer Takata Corp., along with TK Holdings Inc., Highland Industries Inc., Honda Motor Company Ltd., American Honda Motor Company Inc., and Honda Canada Inc. over a massive vehicle recall due to defective and potentially deadly airbags. Ms. Rai filed a notice of civil claim in BC Supreme Court on November 12. According to the lawsuit, she received a recall notice in August about her 2003 Honda Accord's passenger-side airbag needing replacement "due to a defect which could cause serious and potential fatal injury to vehicle occupants." Class members include B.C. residents who bought or leased Honda vehicles from January 1, 2000, to the present, which were the subject of recalls dating back to November 2008. Recalled vehicles include several Acura models from 2001 through 2003, and various Honda models from the same period. Several cases from the U.S., according to the claim, reported that airbags "violently exploded during an accident collision sending metal and plastic shrapnel into the vehicle cabin causing serious and/or fatal injury." Takata allegedly developed the airbags to be more compact and less toxic than older models. The defective airbags inflate by using "an explosive based on a common compound used in fertilizers" and are encased in a metal canister that potentially sprays metal fragments through airbag cushions after rupturing, according to the lawsuit. In the U.S., the National Highway Transport Safety Administration has recalled approximately five million Honda vehicles, while more than 300,000 have been recalled in Canada since 2008. The suit says more than 14 million vehicles with Takata airbags have been recalled worldwide, and "a large majority of those recalls have come only within the last year despite the fact that many of the vehicles were manufactured with a potentially defective and dangerous airbag over a decade ago." The airbags have been linked to four deaths and 139 injuries, the claim says, and Takata has allegedly known of the problem over the last 13 years. Ms. Rai seeks class certification, orders compelling the defendants to repair the defective vehicles, disgorgement of profits from sales of the vehicles and damages for fraud, breach of warranty and violations of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The allegations have not been tested in court and the defendants hadn't filed a response by press time. TAKATA CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Airbag Defect Cases ------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports that major car manufacturers and the maker of defective air bags that have recently been recalled are pushing to have the cases filed against them by affected car owners across the country consolidated in an MDL in Pittsburgh while plaintiffs lawyers are divided over where they want the cases sent. The initial motion for consolidation of the cases was made at the beginning of November on behalf of nearly 20 plaintiffs asking for the forum to be set in the Southern District of Florida, where U.S. District Senior Judge James Lawrence King has been handling some of them. Over the course of the past month, several other groups of plaintiffs weighed in with their choice of forum, from the Los Angeles-based Central District of California to the Southern District of New York. Generally, the tenor of plaintiffs lawyers in these cases takes one of two forms, said Richard Marcus, a professor who teaches complex litigation at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. He said the possibilities are: a "plaintiffs' side cabal" or a "plaintiffs' side cat fight." A "tension between making a deal . . . and fighting to the death will exist on a number of subjects and if you want to be lead counsel, better to have it in your backyard than not in your backyard," Mr. Marcus said. Takata, the company that made the air bags that have been exploding with metal debris, and car manufacturers including Honda, BMW, Ford, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota, filed responses to the motion, urging the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania. They argue that Pittsburgh is convenient because Takata and the car makers all have headquarters or manufacturing plants nearby; it is a convenient place for all parties and witnesses to reach; and it has "favorable docket conditions." The location of evidence is no longer as controlling a factor as it used to be since much of it is now electronic, said John Evans, a lawyer at Specter Specter Evans & Manogue in Pittsburgh, who handles complex litigation. U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer, who has been handling the Takata cases filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, is skilled with managing e-discovery, Evans said. The more common position for defendants to take in front of the MDL panel is that consolidation isn't necessary, he said. Arguing otherwise is "a strategic call on their part." "Transfer and coordination of the dozens of class actions concerning Takata air bags is plainly warranted," the car manufacturers argued in their brief to the MDL panel. "The only question is where to establish the MDL." Takata said, essentially, the same thing in its brief. Both argued for the Western District of Pennsylvania. "The bottom line is, they think strategically. They're comfortable with the judge they have" and the rulings they expect they'll get, Evans said. Judge Fischer was at the Pittsburgh defense firm of Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek & Eck, then at Pietragallo Bosick & Gordon, before she joined the federal bench. Judge Fischer is well respected by both the plaintiffs bar and the defense bar in Pittsburgh, Mr. Evans said. Howard Specter, a lawyer at the same firm, said of Judge Fischer, "She calls them as she sees them. She's objective." She's also a good case manager, he said. Advocating for the Western District of Pennsylvania as a forum is more an indication of where the defendants don't want the case to be than where they do, Mr. Specter said. And, there could be "an uninformed belief that we're simply a more conservative place . . . than Miami, or L.A., or San Francisco," he said. Ultimately, the MDL panel will send the cases to a judge who is suited to handle them and has the space on his or her docket, Marcus said. The parties can argue for their preference of forum, he said, but the panel works independently. The defendants argued the Western District of Pennsylvania has a lighter caseload relative to other potential forums, which would weigh in favor of moving the cases there. The Western District has 10 allotted judgeships, but it currently has three vacancies, two of which won't yield senior judges because former U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin resigned to join the private sector and former U.S. District Chief Judge Gary Lancaster died. Senior judges can be relied upon to lighten the caseload for active judges by taking on work, but there are only five senior judges in the Western District. A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit judge, D. Michael Fisher, recently stepped in to take on two cases in the Western District due partly to the shortage of judges on that bench. Judge Fisher has his chambers in Pittsburgh and had also wanted to get trial experience since he joined the appellate bench after having been in private practice and then being elected twice to serve as Pennsylvania attorney general. Marcus noted the increase in the prevalence of MDLs over the last 10 to 15 years -- aside from prisoner petitions and Social Security cases, 40 percent of all pending civil cases are subject to an MDL order -- which means that the number of judges who are equipped to handle them and called upon to do so is getting larger. The number of plaintiffs lawyers who are involved with them is also getting larger, and the likelihood of collaboration among them is lower when they haven't worked together before. Neither Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- of Podhurst Orseck in Miami, nor David Fernandes of Baron and Budd in Los Angeles returned a call for comment. Each represent plaintiffs in the case. Dechert, a Philadelphia-based law firm, is representing Takata and a spokeswoman for the firm said it declined to comment on the issue. TAKATA CORP: Exec Defends Decision Not Initiate Nationwide Recall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that Hiroshi Shimizu, senior vice president for global quality assurance at Takata Corp., on Dec. 3 defended his company's decision not to initiate a nationwide air bag recall, saying a regional recall is sufficiently addressing a deadly safety defect. In his second public appearance on Capitol Hill in three weeks, Mr. Shimizu told members of a House panel that the most recent information Takata has on the problem shows that the Japanese manufacturer doesn't need to expand recalls beyond the 7.8 million U.S. cars and trucks in the hot and humid climates of many Southern states. At least five deaths have been tied to the defect, which has brought more than 30 lawsuits, mostly class actions brought on behalf of consumers. Takata on Dec. 2 indicated that it wouldn't institute a nationwide recall for its driver-side air bags as ordered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The company could face a $7,000 per vehicle fine for noncompliance. TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Suit Transferred From N.J. to Nebraska ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05738, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The Nebraska District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00396-JFB-TDT to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated customers of TD Ameritrade in connection with alleged self-interested routing of the Company's clients' orders to venues, which paid the maximum liquidity rebate or paid for order flow, irrespective of whether the routing would optimize execution quality. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska, is the parent company and sole equity holder of TD Ameritrade, Inc., which is also based in Omaha. TD Ameritrade, Inc., is a financial services company, which acts as a broker-dealer, and is engaged in the trading of, among other things, stocks and bonds for itself and its over six million clients. TD Ameritrade has more than $375 billion in client accounts and executes an average of 400,000 trades per day. TD Ameritrade is the third largest discount brokerage. Fredric Tomczyk is a resident of Michigan, and is the Chief Executive Officer of TD Ameritrade. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Katrina Carroll, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com kcarroll@litedepalma.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Sebastian Tonatore, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: ek@zlk.com nkulesa@zlk.com ckupka@zlk.com stornatore@zlk.com The Defendants are represented by: Alex Kaplan, Esq. Jackie A. Lu, Esq. Robert A. Pietrzak, Esq. SIDLEY, AUSTIN LAW FIRM 787 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com jlu@sidley.com rpietrzak@sidley.com - and - Donald A. Robinson, Esq. Leda D. Wettre, Esq. ROBINSON, WETTRE LAW FIRM One Newark Center, 19th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 690-5400 Facsimile: (973) 466-2760 E-mail: DRobinson@rwmlegal.com LWettre@rwmlegal.com - and - Thomas H. Dahlk, Esq. Victoria H. Buter, Esq. KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-2186 Telephone: (402) 346-6000 Facsimile: (402) 346-1148 E-mail: tom.dahlk@kutakrock.com vicki.buter@kutakrock.com TRUE NORTH: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Saul Lefort, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. True North AR, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-05322-DMR (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2014) alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Suren Naradha Weerasuriya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com UNITED NORTHERN: Sexually Harassed Gay Loan Originator, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joanne Fava v. United Northern Mortgage Bankers Ltd., Don Giorgio, individually, and Michael Gannon, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv- 07042-ENV-VVP (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) is brought under the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Executive Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York City Administrative Code, and related state law claims and seeks damages to redress the injuries the Plaintiff has allegedly suffered as a result of being sexually harassed and discriminated against on the basis of her gender and sexual orientation. Ms. Fava worked as a loan originator and the Staten Island Branch Manager of United Northern. She is a gay female over the age of 40. Based in Levittown, New York, United Northern Mortgage Bankers Limited is a domestic business corporation that does business in the state of New York. United Northern operated an office located in Staten Island, New York. Don Giorgio was the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Michael Gannon was the Vice President of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Neveloff, Esq. THE NEVELOFF LAW FIRM, PC 30 Broad Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 964-2066 Facsimile: (212) 964-5854 E-mail: daniel@neveloff.com VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Seek Approval of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Commercial Litigation Insider, reports that shareholders who brought a class action objecting to Verizon Communications' $130 billion acquisition of Vodafone's 45-percent stake in the American telecom's wireless business have asked for final court approval of their non-monetary settlement. Plaintiffs law firm Faruqi & Faruqi in New York is seeking $2 million in attorney fees and expenses, which Verizon is not opposing. However, objectors, including Gerald Walpin, a New York attorney and Verizon shareholder representing himself, say the fees are excessive in light of the return for stockholders in ownership of 2.86 billion shares. The plaintiffs said that the Verizon's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty to stockholders by causing the company to pay "an allegedly excessive and dilutive price" to acquire Vodafone subsidiaries as well as the minority interest in Verizon Wireless. The plaintiffs also said the duty of candor was violated because the directors failed to disclose material information from their financial advisors opining that the transaction was fair. In exchange for settling the suit, the plaintiffs said Verizon agreed to include supplemental disclosures about the transaction ahead of a shareholder vote last January. The plaintiffs also said that Verizon's board of directors agreed to obtain a fairness opinion from an independent financial advisor for "any transaction regarding assets of Verizon Wireless having a book value . . . in excess of $14.4 billion," or approximately 5 percent of the book value of Verizon Wireless. The plaintiffs said a fairness opinion would ensure that the telecom's management would not sell assets too cheaply after paying a premium for them. Without the settlement, the directors of Verizon, which is a Delaware corporation, have no legal duty to obtain an opinion on the fairness of their corporate transactions, the plaintiffs said. "Such independent fairness opinions for transactions implicating as little as 5 percent of the company's assets are neither required by law, nor are they common in the business community," Nadeem Faruqi and Juan E. Monteverde of Faruqi & Faruqi said in their court papers. "These corporate governance reforms, however, provided Verizon stockholders with a material benefit in the form of providing stockholders with heightened protection from the possibility of management selling assets too cheaply after acquiring them at a premium price." The case is pending before Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Melvin L. Schweitzer. Preliminary approval already was granted to the settlement. In September 2013, Verizon announced its agreement with Vodafone Group Plc and Vodafone 4 Limited to acquire Vodafone's 45 percent indirect interest in Verizon Wireless. In exchange, Verizon agreed to pay $59 billion in cash financed by what was among the largest corporate bond issuances in history. Verizon also agreed to pay $60 billion in Verizon stock, $5 billion in notes payable to Vodafone 4, a 23.1 percent stake in Vodafone Omnitel N.V. valued at $3.5 billion and other consideration of $2.5 billion. While the transaction involved the purchase of a minority interest in Verizon's wireless business, it was the third-largest acquisition ever, Faruqi & Faruqi said. Fewer than 223 stockholders wanted to opt out of the settlement, according to the firm's court papers. Fee Fight Faruqi & Faruqi argues that Delaware law recognizes giving attorney fees to plaintiffs lawyers who "provide a substantial benefit in the form of disclosures or therapeutic measures." According to the firm, those benefits were the disclosure of additional information about the Verizon-Vodafone transaction ahead of the shareholder vote and requiring Verizon to obtain an independent opinion on the fairness of selling 5 percent or more of their assets over the next three years. The fee lodestar is $640,500 multiplied by 2.90. The firm also says it incurred a little more than $144,000 in fees. Mr. Walpin said in his filing that the fees were actually only $25,299.38. Mr. Walpin said in an email he is objecting to a settlement in which the plaintiffs lawyers would get $2 million in fees but the plaintiffs would not get any remuneration. There are even costs to shareholders to pay a settlement out of corporate assets, he said. Avi Szenberg -- avi.szenberg@szenok.com -- of Szenberg & Okun in New York, writing on behalf of client Jonathan M. Crist, said this case reflects a negative practice by class-action attorneys to file "lawsuits virtually every time a merger or acquisition of a public company is announced, followed shortly thereafter by a non- pecuniary settlement for no meaningful benefit to the shareholders, accompanied by large fee requests by the plaintiff's lawyers for very little work." Mr. Szenberg said in an email that the overall deal is not being challenged. Instead, his client is challenging the request for attorney fees because "plaintiff's counsel achieved no benefit for the shareholders." Verizon's lawyers are Paul K. Rowe and Adam M. Gogolak -- AMGogolak@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York. The lawyers from Faruqi & Faruqi did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. Rowe -- PKRowe@wlrk.com -- also did not respond to a request for comment. VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Salomon Shalem, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07515-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., December 3, 2014) 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 * Jails Take Steps to Abide by 48-Hour Rule After Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Black, writing for South Bend Tribune, reports that near midnight on Sept. 29, 2008, Amanda Strunk and Joshua Cleveland were arrested together near a meth lab in rural LaGrange County and booked into the LaGrange County Jail. The two, in their 30s, became the representatives of a federal class-action lawsuit filed in 2010 that has inspired new policies and will soon result in a million-dollar settlement for them and 237 others who were jailed past 48 hours without probable cause being established, violating their Fourth Amendment rights. In fact, wending through the federal court system now are several similar lawsuits involving other county sheriffs in Indiana, who have been forced to adapt to meet the 48-hour standard upheld over the years. But negotiations over what the "loss of liberty" of hundreds of inmates is worth have drawn out the cases in court. * Whitley County's sheriff was sued in April 2008, after Huntington resident Lawrence Bickel was arrested without a warrant on a Thursday in 2006, but his detention was not judged to have probable cause until the following Monday. Like other smaller counties, the sheriff described in court documents a policy in which arrestees were taken to court only once a week, regardless of when they were arrested. A settlement reached earlier this year and set to be heard by a federal judge in March calls for $725,000 to be distributed to 243 members of the class. * Allen County authorities -- although they, too, altered policies to achieve inmate release or probable cause findings within 48 hours -- have drawn a line in the sand over the amount to be divided among more than 962 members in the class-action lawsuit filed in February 2010 on behalf of LeTasha Myatt and others who were held over long weekends. Ms. Myatt, who was arrested on a Thursday and not released until late on the following Monday, was charged with battery; those charges were later dropped after she completed a pretrial diversion program. A threeweek jury trial is set for January. Allen County officials declined comment, but they pointed out in court documents that many of those who were "overdetained" eventually were credited with the extra time they spent in the jail once they were sentenced. But the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in court documents, "By their verdict, the jury will, indeed, be sending a message as to the value of the liberty lost." * The most recent class-action lawsuit related to the 48-hours issue was filed in Clark County in southern Indiana earlier this year, on behalf of Carlton Wright and more than 620 others identified so far, court documents say. Mr. Wright was arrested Dec. 24, 2009, but was not afforded an initial hearing until Jan. 4, 2010. Defense attorneys say jail policies were changed in January 2011 to meet the 48-hour standard. Settlement negotiations continue. * In St. Joseph County, county attorney James Groves said that because federal rulings on detention rights are clear, it was decided there was no use in driving up attorneys' fees any higher than necessary to defend a class-action suit filed in 2011. In fact, he said, the previous sheriff was aware of the issue and had reached out to a previous prosecutor more than a decade ago to resolve the situation, to no avail. Negotiations are nearly finished, Mr. Groves said, and the judge set a status report due by Dec. 12. County commissioners will have to approve the settlement before it goes before a federal judge. John Donovan was arrested by Indiana State Police -- court records show he was ultimately charged with a license plate infraction -- in October 2009 and held longer than 48 hours before an initial hearing, the documents allege. St. Joseph County authorities have not yet advertised the class or mailed notices to the 50 or so people jail records indicate would be affected. Mr. Groves said a subsequent policy corrects what was essentially a weekend detainment issue. "This county has constructed those procedures entirely on its own," Mr. Groves said. Although he can't yet divulge the current figure both sides have bandied about, "it will be a number substantially less than you've been seeing with the other counties." Who's to blame? The LaGrange County case will likely be the first to be resolved, but debate over the situation has been publicly contentious, with outgoing Sheriff Terry Martin blaming the violations on the county's prosecutor and two judges. Mr. Martin, who is nearing the end of his second term and was recently elected a county commissioner, said unlike other counties that struggled with weekend arrests, "during the week, I have no control." Ms. Strunk and Mr. Cleveland, the class representatives of the LaGrange suit, were held for three and seven days, respectively. "We found out there was a problem. We corrected the problem," Mr. Martin said of a new policy he said was crafted with the cooperation of everyone but outgoing Prosecutor Jeff Wible. "Everybody agreed on it except for one person." So now, he says, the burden unfairly falls on his officers to sometimes lengthen their shifts to finish paper work related to arrests by not only their department's officers, but others, as well. "There's a lot of paper work in law enforcement as it is," Mr. Martin said. "We've just added on." But Mr. Wible, who was defeated in the primary race for prosecutor earlier this year and will resume his private law practice, points out that Martin also publicly blamed the county's two judges for tying his hands in making sure those arrested without warrants were either charged or released within the 48 hours. "It was such a large blunder that Terry has to have somebody to blame," Mr. Wible said, acknowledging Martin's contention that the two have rarely seen eye to eye over the years the two have held their respective offices, 12 for Mr. Wible and eight for Mr. Martin. Police officers have copies of probable cause affidavits they fill out after an arrest, and sometimes they have to work later to fill out all of the paper work, Mr. Wible said. It might be costing taxpayers more, but "I can't file the charges if I don't know what they've done. You need an officer to fill it out and turn it in. "What he doesn't want is to cut somebody loose after 48 hours who he suspects has violated the law," Mr. Wible said of Mr. Martin. "That doesn't make him too popular with police officers." The reason Mr. Wible didn't sign Martin's earlier proposal, he said, "was because I knew Terry was violating the law." 'They have rights' The lead attorney for the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, Christopher Myers of Fort Wayne, said case law is clear that it's a sheriff who is responsible for enforcing Fourth Amendment rights because "he holds the key to the jail." Mr. Myers said his law firm researched the issue after hearing from inmates around the state complaining their jail stints were too long. "After these cases were brought, there was a rash of counties redoing their policies. Which of course is a good thing," Mr. Myers said. After the settlements are reached, then the work of determining how the lump sums should be divided -- Mr. Myers' firm has proposed a fee of 40 percent in the LaGrange suit, which the judge must also approve -- really begins. "The people who lost more (liberty) should get more," Mr. Myers said. Class members are allowed to fill out special claim forms noting extraordinary losses, such as lost income or counseling needs. Steve Luce, a former sheriff who is now director of the Indiana Sheriffs Association, said his group regularly trains sheriff officials on legal issues, including the 48- hour detention rulings. Because sheriffs are limited to two terms, that turnover means more updates and repeated trainings, he said. For instance, the 48-hour clock begins with the arrest, not the booking into a jail. Jails are typically the greatest source of a county's liability, Mr. Luce said, comprising 7 of every 10 lawsuits nationally. So education is important. "You cannot just run the good ol' Andy Griffith jail you could maybe 20, 30 years ago," he said. "Even when they're locked up, they have rights." Although the money paid out technically comes from insurance companies, Mr. Luce noted the settlements still cost taxpayers because county general funds finance the policies. Ms. Strunk and Mr. Cleveland, standing outside a federal courtroom in South Bend recently as the class representatives in the LaGrange case, were reluctant to say much, referring instead to Myers. Class representatives receive more in payouts because of the added time and risk in taking a complaint forward. "Nobody," Mr. Cleveland acknowledged carefully, "wants to be in jail." * Tenants Can Seek Overcharges From New York City Landlords ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the state's highest court says tenants seeking overcharges from New York City landlords who lifted rent controls on particular apartments while still getting tax breaks can bring class-action lawsuits. The Court of Appeals, divided 4-2, is upholding three suits whose classes range from 53 to more than 500 current and former tenants. The issue is whether individual apartments were unlawfully deregulated before a 2009 court ruling prohibited it. In all three, the tenants waived seeking possible treble damages permitted under the rent-stabilization law for willful overcharges. Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman writes that customer overcharges aren't penalties and so the law doesn't specifically prohibit class actions. Judge Robert Smith, in a dissent, says the statute prohibits class actions to recover penalties, and that's what tenants are seeking, whether tripled or not. ********* 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 * * *