/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150108.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 6 Headlines ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says ADF MIDATLANTIC: 11th Circuit Flips Ruling in "Keim" Suit ALLIED RECREATION: Recalls Bounder Classic AMERICAN DEBT: Claims Against Affiliates Junked in "Newton" Suit AMERICAN REALTY: Removes "Wunsch" Suit to District of Maryland ARCHCARE: Sued for Terminating Practical Nurse Because He Is Gay AZTEC RESTAURANT: Removes "Canales" Class Suit to S.D. Florida B&G FOODS: Recalls Ortega and Las Palmas Taco Products BEYER LAW: Trial Court Order in "Mahboubian" Suit Upheld BLUE CROSS: Sued by Inside Direct Sales Agents Over Commissions BLUE MARTINI: Removes "Fernandez" FLSA Class Suit to S.D. Florida BOURDEAU CONSTRUCTION: Former Workers Granted $25K in Atty's Fees C TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Landau" Suit Over FDCPA Violations C TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Weissman" Suit Over FDCPA Violations CHARGERS FOOTBALL: Accused of Placing Unsolicited Marketing Calls CHEMOURS CO: Defending Against Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Case CHEMOURS CO: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint to Limit Class CHEMOURS CO: Trial in Drinking Water Cases Begin September 2015 CON-WAY FREIGHT: Removes "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. California COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Most Favored Nation" Provision Invoked in Suit COVANCE INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim CREDIT PROTECTION: Ohio Court Allows Discovery in "Peters" Suit DAKOTA GRANITE: MDL Plaintiffs May Supplement Expert Report DIMPFLMEIER: Recalls Pumpernickel Roggenbrot Due to Milk DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Orthodox Coconut Palm Coconut Juice ENDO HEALTH: Louisiana Health Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois EXCEL SECURITY: Accused of Discriminating Against Indian Worker FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES: Recalls Smokey Sweet BBQ Meat Products FEDEX CORP: Defendant in a Number of Wage-and-Hour Cases FEDEX CORP: Provides Updates on Independent Contractor Cases FISHER & PAYKEL: Recalls Infant Radiant Warmers (2014-11-18) FLUIDMASTER INC: "Rensel" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois FOX HILL: Recalls Gelato Due to Underprocessing FRED DEELEY: Recalls Tri Glide Ultra (FLHTCUTG) Model FRY'S ELECTRONICS: "Ramos" Suit Proceeds to Arbitration GLAVAL: Recalls Entourage, Titan and Universal Models HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown & "Lohela" Case Can Proceed as Class Suit HERTZ CORP: Faces "Ketibe" Suit Alleging Job Discrimination HEWLETT-PACKARD: June 8 Final Approval Hearing in "Cunningham" HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Approval Hearing in "Salva" Case on June 8 HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Case Engaged in Discovery HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Approved Settlement in "Blake" Case HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Benedict" Case in Discovery HEWLETT-PACKARD: Deadline to Appeal in "Gammel" Suit Has Passed HEWLETT-PACKARD: Brief Filed in Cement & Concrete Workers Case HEWLETT-PACKARD: Feb. 20 Hearing on Class Certification Motion HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jan. 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Case HINO: Recalls XFC Model Due to Loss of Motive Power HOME DEPOT: "Burris" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL HOME DEPOT: "Chorman" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL HOME DEPOT: "First NBC" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL HOME DEPOT: Sued by First National Bank in Georgia District Court HOME DEPOT: "Earls" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL HOME DEPOT: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Provide Breaks HUMANA INC: Removes "Shively" Suit to California District Court INTERSTATE HOTELS: Removes "Unutoa" Class Suit to C.D. California ISUZU: Recalls Reach Van Model Due to Bending and Corrosion JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tex. Court Dismisses Johnson v. Drake Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tex. Court Dismisses Johnson v. Partee Suit KAYTEL MEDIA: Recalls King Brand Disposable Lighters KEYSTONE: Recalls Aerolite & Rubicon Models Due to Short Circuit KMART CORP: Faces Suit Arising From Credit Card Data Breach LA COUNTRY CLUB: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages LINKEDEN CORPORATION: N.D. Cal. Judge Narrows "Perkins" Case LOC-SKY TRADING: Recalls Honghong Crisp Cakes Walnut Cracker LOWE'S HOME: Discriminates Against Gay Employees, Suit Claims LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Removes "Berenato" Suit to C.D. California MACK: Recalls CHU and CXU Models Due to Ball Sockets MACK: Recalls CHU, CXU, GU and TD Models Due to Module MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Zaccagnini" Suit Over Faulty Fuel Tanks MIMEDX GROUP: Shareholder Class Suit Over False Claims Continues MASSACHUSETTS: Legislature Should Fix Foster Care System MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Recalls Altitude Shag Gold Rug MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Blamed by Mom Over Death of Son in Jail MTI GROUPS: Recalls MD Brand Products Due to Undeclared Sulphites NATIONAL ACCOUNT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims NATIONAL COLLEGE: Removes "Spangler" Suit to S.D. California NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Dismissed Players' Medical Class Action NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NEW YORK, NY: US Government to Intervene in Suit By Rikers Teens NEWEGG.COM AMERICAS: Accused of Inflating Value of Discounts NHA TRANG: Recalls Beef Balls Due to Listeria Monocytogenes NRL FEDERAL: Removes "Chambers" Suit to Maryland District Court OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Fla. Court Denies Bid to Junk "Shamblin" Suit PHILLIPS & COHENS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act PK TRADING: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Mustard PROVECTUS BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff, Atty Named in "Farrah" Suit QUALITY FOODS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss ADA Suit RICK'S CABARET: Cannot Appeal $10.8MM Judgment in Suit by Dancers SANDERSON FARMS: 11th Circuit Affirmed Class Action Dismissal SONY PICTURES: Hacks Exposed Workers to ID Theft, Class Suits Say STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Print Fleece Top SURREY SUPER MARKET: Recalls Maggi Healthy Soups - Mixed Veggies SYNGENTA CORP: "Trans Coastal" Suit Included in MIR162 Corn MDL SYNGENTA CORP: "Volnek" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL SYSTEMAX INC: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation in New York SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: Foreign Consultant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime TEREX: Recalls AL5 LIGHT Tower Model TEXAS: Appeals Court Affirms Order Denying Cert. of "Riemer" Suit THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Vinacafe and Vinacafe BH Wake-Up Coffee TRACY'S TREASURES: Court Clarifies Insurer's Duties in TCPA Suit TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mayacamas Hollandaise Sauce Mix TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Ex-Student Wants $1.3MM in Counsel Fees & Costs UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Crisp Rolls and Crackers UNIVERSAL IMPEX: Recalls Curry Powder VERKA FOOD: Recalls Peanut Brittle Due to Undeclared Sesame Seeds VIRGINIA: FCCW Inmates Obtain Partial Summary Judgment WALTER INVESTMENT: Fla. Court Tosses Shareholder Class Action WALTER INVESTMENT: Facing Shareholder Class Action in S.D. Fla. WAUPOOSE ESTATE: Recalls Sweet Apple Cider Due to Patulin WELLPOINT INC: Sets Up Monopoly Using Illegal Licenses, Suit Says WELLS FARGO: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Counts in "Foley" Case WHOLE FOODS: "Bilder" Suit Transferred From New Jersey to Texas XANODYNE PHARMA: "Corber" Case Belongs in Dist. Ct, 9th Cir. Says YAMAHA: Recalls YZ250FFL and YZ250FFW Models ZUFFA LLC: Accused by UFC Fighters of Controlling MMA Market ********* ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chaya Mendelsohn, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14- cv-07501 (E.D.N.Y., December 24, 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 ADF MIDATLANTIC: 11th Circuit Flips Ruling in "Keim" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The district court dismissed the proposed class action filed by Brian Keim against ADF MidAtlantic LLC, et al., as moot after the defendants served on the named plaintiff a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment that the defendants say would have provided complete relief to the named plaintiff individually. The named plaintiff did not accept the offer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion dated Dec. 1, 2014, reversed the district court's ruling, citing Jeffrey Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A. v. Buccaneers Ltd. Partnership, ___ F.3d ___, No. 13-15417 (11th Cir. ___, 2014), where the Eleventh Circuit held that a proposed class action like Keim's was not rendered moot by an unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of complete relief to the named plaintiffs, but not to class members. In Stein, like Keim, the defendant served the Rule 68 offer before the class was certified and indeed before the named plaintiffs moved to certify the class. The decision is squarely on point and requires reversal of the district court's order dismissing the Keim case, the Eleventh Circuit ruled. The appeals case is BRIAN KEIM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADF MIDATLANTIC, LLC; AMERICAN HUTS, INC.; ADF PIZZA I, LLC; ADF PA, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-13619 (11th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at http://is.gd/2VsGSifrom Leagle.com. ALLIED RECREATION: Recalls Bounder Classic ------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 17, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 5 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014520 TC ID number: 2014520 Manufacturer recall number: 141107ARG On certain motorhomes, a grab bar mounted to the inside of the sidewall has inadequate structural reinforcement at the installation area. This may allow the grab bar to be pulled loose from the wall during use, which could result in a fall and/or injury. Dealers will remove and reinstall the grab bar so that it is mounted to a reinforcement steel plate. Affected products: 2014 Fleetwood RV AMERICAN DEBT: Claims Against Affiliates Junked in "Newton" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jonny Bonner reports that a federal judge dismissed in part a California woman's claims against affiliates of a prominent debt servicer for their alleged failure to settle her credit card debts. Heather Newton, representing a putative class, claimed in 2011 that American Debt Services agreed to settle her debts for half the balance owed. Newton said the company and its three affiliates, however, kept a hefty portion of her fees, allowed her to retrieve only about half of the money to pay a bank, and gave her a $70 refund. Newton claimed she was originally contacted by American Debt Services, and received a welcome packet from Quality Support Services, plus account application and debit instructions from Global Client Solutions and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust. She said the companies told her to register for a "special purpose account" with Rocky Mountain, and to authorize Global Client Solutions to withdraw three, non-refundable fees from her banking account. Newton said she eventually discovered that the defendants had not contacted any of her creditors, including Chase and Bank of America. So she terminated ADS's services and requested a refund. The debt servicers refunded only $70 of $4,200 that Newton had paid them, she said, and she used $2,200 from her special purpose account to pay Bank of America. She said the remaining $1,900 was pocketed by the servicers. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen denied ADS's motion to compel arbitration of the class action in 2012, citing three reasons. "[T]he arbitration clause shortens the statute of limitations . . . the arbitration clause would prevent a customer from recovering attorney's fees . . . [and] the arbitration clause requires arbitration in Orange County, Calif., the home town of defendant ADS," Chen ruled. "Taken together, the arbitration clause has three provisions that would impermissibly limit a customer's ability to bring a claim, whether by shortening the statute of limitations, forcing a customer to bear attorney's costs they would not have to under the statutes, or requiring the customer to arbitrate in a distant forum." Following default by ADS and QSS, Newton filed a second amended complaint against defendants RMBT and Global. Newton claimed RMBT violated all three prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law by breaching a 2009 cease and desist order between the bank and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The remaining co-defendants, RMBT and Global, aided and abetted ADS's and QSS's violation of California's Proraters Law, Newtown said. On December 16, Chen dismissed the lawsuit in part, ruling Newton's "unlawful" and "unfairness" prong claims failed because the FDIC order could not be enforced based on lack of jurisdiction, or otherwise "borrowed" to serve as a predicate law violation under the Unfair Competition Law. Newton's "fraudulent" prong claim failed, Chen said, because she did not specifically respond to the defendants' summary judgment motion. "Newton argues that if this court finds (as it has) that it cannot adjudicate whether RMBT actually violated the FDIC order, that she be allowed to amend her complaint to allege that RMBT acted unfairly simply by continuing its business relationship with its co-defendants irrespective of the commands of the FDIC order," the 21-page order states. "Such an amendment could possibly salvage Newton's claim. But such an amendment cannot be permitted at this late stage of the litigation." It was not all rosy for the defendants, as Chen denied their motion regarding Newton's aiding-and-abetting claims. "Not only did the court previously find that both Global and RMBT can be held liable under the UCL for aiding-and-abetting ADS's and QSS's violations of the Proraters Law, the court further held that Newton had submitted sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on these claims," Chen wrote. "RMBT and Global never filed a motion for reconsideration of this court's earlier orders. Their attempt to get a third bite at the apple is untimely, in violation of this court's standing orders, and ultimately unpersuasive." The case is Heather L. Newton v. American Debt Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-03228-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. AMERICAN REALTY: Removes "Wunsch" Suit to District of Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Wunsch v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-C-14-012816, was removed from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04007-ELH to the proceeding. The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons, who acquired the common stock of ARCP pursuant or traceable to the alleged false and defective Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's acquisition of Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick C. Smith, Esq. DEHAY AND ELLISTON LLP 36 S Charles St., Suite 1300 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 783-7225 Facsimile: (410) 783-7221 E-mail: psmith@dehay.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Edward B. Gerard, Esq. Justin D. Rieger, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com egerard@robbinsarroyo.com jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com The Defendants are represented by: Laurie B. Goon, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 111 S Calvert St., Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 949-2900 Facsimile: (410) 949-2901 E-mail: lbgoon@duanemorris.com ARCHCARE: Sued for Terminating Practical Nurse Because He Is Gay ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.T. Robinson, Jr. v. Archcare and Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center, Case No. 1:14-cv-10098 (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2014) seeks damages for the Defendants' alleged illegal termination of the Plaintiff's employment based upon his sexual orientation pursuant to New York City Human Rights Law. Mr. Robinson worked as a Licensed Practical Nurse for the Defendants. He alleges that the Defendants deliberately discriminated against and terminated him because he is gay. Archcare is a not-for-profit health care organization organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in New York City. Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center is a Health Care Center organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Walker G. Harman, Jr., Esq. Ronnie L. Silverberg, Esq. THE HARMAN FIRM, P.C. 1776 Broadway, Suite 2030 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 425-2600 E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com rsilverberg@theharmanfirm.com AZTEC RESTAURANT: Removes "Canales" Class Suit to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Canales v. Aztec Restaurant Corporation, et al., Case No. 2014-CA-002347, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-62917-WPD to the proceeding. Plaintiff Juan Canales brings the action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees of the Defendants for overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100 Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 921-9994 Facsimile: (305) 574-0132 E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com The Defendants are represented by: Catalina M. Avalos, Esq. TRIPP SCOTT 110 SE 6th Street 15th Floor PO Box 14245 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302-4245 Telephone: (954) 760-4912 Facsimile: (954) 761-8475 E-mail: cma@trippscott.com B&G FOODS: Recalls Ortega and Las Palmas Taco Products ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 14, 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&G Foods Canada, ULC, B. H. Kosher Products Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9482 The food recall warning issued on Nov. 10, 2014 has been updated to include additional products. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Industry is recalling Ortega and Las Palmas brand taco products from the marketplace because they contain peanut and almond which are not declared on the label. Consumers with an allergy to peanut or almond, food service establishments, retailers, and distributors should not consume, serve, use, or sell the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to peanut or almond, 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 CFIA's 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. BEYER LAW: Trial Court Order in "Mahboubian" Suit Upheld -------------------------------------------------------- Associate Justice Miguel Marquez of the Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, affirmed a lower court judgment in a case involving Beyer Law Group, et al. The appellate case is, RAMIN MAHBOUBIAN, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BEYER LAW GROUP, et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. H039415 (Cal. App. Ct.) Plaintiff-Appellant Ramin Mahboubian was employed by the law firm Beyer & Weaver, LLP as a patent agent. The partners at the firm included Jeff Weaver, Michael Ferrazano, Steve Beyer, and others. Mahboubian had a successful career with Beyer & Weaver, and by 2007 and 2008, he regularly earned an average of $20,000 per month. In March 2008, some of the partners from Beyer & Weaver parted ways with Beyer and Ferrazano to form their own law firm. Beyer and Ferrazano formed a new law firm, the Beyer Law Group. Both Beyer and the departing partners sought to have Mahboubian join their respective firms based upon his skills and reputation. Mahboubian and the other class members accepted employment with the newly created BLG. Plaintiffs sometimes did not receive any pay. Beyer, Ferrazano, and Michael Lee -- all of whom had control of Plaintiffs' wages -- jointly and willfully decided not to pay them. BLG terminated Mahboubian's employment on June 11, 2010. In October 2011, Mahboubian filed his original complaint, which alleged ten causes of action against BLG, Beyer, Ferrazano, and Lee. The original complaint contained a first cause of action alleging Labor Code violations by all defendants under section 510 (failure to pay overtime), section 203 (failure to pay wages upon separation), and section 1194 (failure to pay minimum wages and overtime). It contained a second cause of action alleged against BLG only for violating the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.) by failing to keep record of all hours worked and by failing to pay wages and overtime as required by the Labor Code. Before any defendant had appeared in the action, Mahboubian filed his first amended complaint, which added the class action allegations. The first amended complaint divided the wage claims into four causes of action that alleged Labor Code violations for failing to (1) pay wages owed upon separation (Sections 201, 202, 203); (2) pay overtime (Sections 510, 1194, 1198); (3) maintain and furnish accurate wage statements and time records (Sections 226, 1174); and (4) pay minimum wages (Section 1197). Like the previous complaint, it contained a fifth cause of action against BLG only for violating the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.) by failing to keep accurate wage records and by failing to pay wages as required by the Labor Code. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on October 19, 2012, before any defendant appeared in the action. This version of the complaint amended the first cause of action to allege the failure to pay (1) the full amount due each week, and (2) wages owed upon separation (Section 200, 204). It also added a sixth cause of action against BLG only for breach of contract for failure to pay wages. Defendants demurred to the first four causes of action in plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Defendants claimed that plaintiffs could not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Beyer and Lee for the alleged Labor Code violations because such claims may be maintained only against an employer. Beyer and Lee were not employers because the complaint alleged that they acted at all times as agents of the corporation within the scope of their agency, and Beyer and Lee should be dismissed. Defendants argued that plaintiffs' conclusory allegations that Beyer and Lee had operational "control" at BLG were insufficient to impose personal liability against either Beyer or Lee. Defendants asserted that leave to amend should be denied because plaintiffs cannot allege facts that would support their claims against Beyer and Lee. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs argue that the lower court erred when it (1) determined that Beyer and Lee are not "employers" for purposes of establishing claims against them under the Labor Code; (2) failed to analyze Beyer's and Lee's liability separately using the correct standard for violations under Business & Professional Code section 17200; and (3) sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend. Associate Justice Marquez concluded that Beyer and Lee could not be held personally liable for Plaintiffs' wage claims as a matter of law. The Court also held that Beyer's and Lee's liability under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. is not at issue in this appeal since Plaintiffs did not allege their unfair competition claim against Beyer and Lee. Lastly, the Court said the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving how their complaint could be amended. The Court therefore concluded that the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and affirmed the judgment. A copy of Associate Justice Marquez's opinion dated November 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/8hgB8ufrom Leagle.com. The Sixth District panel consists of Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing, Associate Justices Eugene M. Premo and Miguel Marquez. BLUE CROSS: Sued by Inside Direct Sales Agents Over Commissions --------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Spiegler, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. Blue Cross of California, d.b.a. Anthem Blue Cross, a California Corporation, doing business in California, and Does 1 to 100, Case No. BC566906 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 17, 2014) is an employment class action brought on behalf of similarly situated California residents employed as current or former "Inside Direct Sales Agents" for Blue Cross. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' employment practice of setting commission goals weeks after the enrollment subject to the commission has been effectuated and the payroll period has closed, is not only in breach of the written commission plan itself, but also in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, California Labor Code, and Unfair Competition Law. Blue Cross of California, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross, is a California corporation 18 locations within California, including in Los Angeles County, California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time. The Defendants sell health insurance plans. Blue Cross is a subsidiary of the conglomerate for-profit health insurance provider WellPoint, Inc. The Defendants employ "direct sales agents," including the Plaintiff, to sell enrollments for Defendants health insurance plans throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Craig Clark, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. CLARK & TREGLIO 205 West Date Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-1321 Facsimile: (888) 273-4554 - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-4554 E-mail: walter@whaines.com BLUE MARTINI: Removes "Fernandez" FLSA Class Suit to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Fernandez v. Blue Martini Miami Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-030690 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv- 24869-JEM to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua Michael Entin, Esq. ENTIN & DELLA FERA, P.A. 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1970 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 761-7201 Facsimile: (954) 764-2443 E-mail: joshentin@comcast.net BOURDEAU CONSTRUCTION: Former Workers Granted $25K in Atty's Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Koenig and James Koenig, II, filed an action against defendant Bourdeau Construction LLC, seeking to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Bourdeau has served upon plaintiffs James Koenig, II, and Ryan Koenig two separate Offers of Judgment but the Plaintiffs declined the offer. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify class, which was conditionally granted. The plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a memorandum and order dated Nov. 26, 2014, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court found that the plaintiffs may recover the special process server fees, copying costs, and postage expenses but not the computer based legal research expenses. Judge Limbaugh ordered that the plaintiff be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $25,054 and costs in the amount of $563. The case is RYAN KOENIG, JAMES KOENIG, II, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOURDEAU CONSTRUCTION LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 4:13CV00477 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.). A full-text copy of Judge Limbaugh's Decision is available at http://is.gd/4M6737from Leagle.com. Ryan Koenig, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Nowogrocki, Esq. -- JNowogrocki@WeissLawSTL.com -- at WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. & Richard D. Worth, Esq. -- rworth@weisslawstl.com -- at WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. James Koenig, II, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Nowogrocki, WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. & Richard D. Worth, WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. Vincent J. Nack, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Nowogrocki, WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. & Richard D. Worth, WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. Mr. James Craig Larkin, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Nowogrocki, WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.. Bourdeau Construction, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony M. Pezzani, ENGELMEYER AND PEZZANI, LLC. C TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Landau" Suit Over FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Rivka Landau, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. C. Tech Collections, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 07492 (E.D.N.Y., December 24, 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 C TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Weissman" Suit Over FDCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Herbert Weissman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. C. Tech Collection, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv- 07488 (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 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 CHARGERS FOOTBALL: Accused of Placing Unsolicited Marketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Story, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chargers Football Company, LLC, a limited-liability company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC566896 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 16, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through their unauthorized contact of consumers. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated the TCPA by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to individuals' cellular telephones, invading each individual's right to privacy. Chargers Football Company, LLC is a limited-liability company with its principal place of business located in San Diego, California. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq. Abigail A. Zelenski, Esq. David Zelenski, Esq. Christine M. Pham, Esq. JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818)630-7280 Facsimile: (888) 879-1697 E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com abigail@jlglawyers.com david@jlglawyers.com christine@jlglawyers.com CHEMOURS CO: Defending Against Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, LLC, a Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, said in its Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, that the Company is defending against the Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation. In February 2010, two suits were filed in Maryland federal district court alleging conspiracy among DuPont, of which Chemours, prior to the distribution, is a subsidiary, Huntsman International LLC (Huntsman), Kronos Worldwide Inc. (Kronos), Millennium Inorganics Chemicals Inc. (Millennium) and others to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between March 2002 and the present. The cases were subsequently consolidated and in August 2012, the court certified a class consisting of U.S. customers that have directly purchased titanium dioxide since February 1, 2003. During the third quarter 2013, DuPont and plaintiffs agreed to settle this matter, subject to court approval. In connection therewith, Chemours has recorded charges of $72 million, within cost of goods sold, at December 31, 2013. The settlement explicitly acknowledges that DuPont denies all allegations and does not admit liability. The court entered the order granting final approval to the settlement on December 13, 2013. The settlement was paid in January 2014. In November 2013, Valspar, which opted out of the class action settlement, filed suit in federal court in Minnesota against DuPont, Huntsman, Kronos and Millennium making substantially similar claims to those made in the class action. The lawsuit was moved to Delaware federal court on DuPont's motion. CHEMOURS CO: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint to Limit Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, LLC, a Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, said in its Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, that plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint, limiting the purported class to indirect purchasers of architectural coating products containing titanium dioxide from 21 states. In March 2013, a purported class action was filed against DuPont, Huntsman, Kronos and Millennium in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of "indirect purchasers" from more than 30 states that purchased products containing titanium dioxide. The settlement cannot be used to establish liability in the indirect purchaser case. In September 2014, the Court dismissed most of the claims in the original complaint. The plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint, limiting the purported class to indirect purchasers of architectural coating products containing titanium dioxide from 21 states. DuPont denies all allegations and will again seek dismissal of the Amended Complaint. Chemours, through DuPont, denies these allegations and is defending itself vigorously against the Valspar and indirect purchaser claims. While management believes a loss related to either matter is reasonably possible, a range of such losses, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. CHEMOURS CO: Trial in Drinking Water Cases Begin September 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, LLC, a Consolidated Subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, said in its Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, that the first trial in Drinking Water Actions is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy- induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. Through DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations. Under the program, notice has been given and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, to participate in diagnostic testing has begun. At each of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, no money has been disbursed from the fund. In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users. Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. At September 30, 2014, there were approximately 2,545 lawsuits filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of about 2,460 and 2,520, respectively over December 31, 2013 and 2012. In accordance with a stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014 and other court procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be served and consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court (MDL). The majority of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There are 18 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. In the third quarter 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual trial. The first trial is scheduled to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015. Chemours, through DuPont, denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. CON-WAY FREIGHT: Removes "Gonzalez" Suit to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Gonzalez v. Con-Way Freight Inc., et al., Case No. 37-02014-00040256-CU, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03009-DMS-MDD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Isaac Dychter, Esq. DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1835 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 487-0777 Facsimile: (619) 330-1827 E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com Defendant Con-Way Freight Inc. is represented by: Jennifer L. Mora, Esq. LITTLER & MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 772-7243 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: jmora@littler.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Most Favored Nation" Provision Invoked in Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the quarterly period ended November 23, 2014, that the Company filed a notice invoking a "most favored nation" provision under the settlement in the class actions against motor fuel retailers. Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.). On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments to class members. On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24, 2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement. A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the order approving the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award of $10 in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to class representatives. The Company has opposed the motion. On March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other defendants, an invocation that class counsel has opposed. COVANCE INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Covance too cheaply through an unfair process to Laboratory Corporation of America, for $6.1 billion or $102.76 a share in a cash and stock deal, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. CREDIT PROTECTION: Ohio Court Allows Discovery in "Peters" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terrence P. Kemp of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted a plaintiff's motion to compel discovery in a putative class action filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against Credit Protection Association L.P. Judge Kemp ruled that the discovery sought is not privileged and that it is relevant given the definition of the class set forth in the complaint. The case is Michael R. Peters, Plaintiff, v. Credit Protection Association LP, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-767 (S.D. Ohio.). A full-text copy of Judge Kemp's Decision is available at http://is.gd/atjsW1from Leagle.com. Michael R Peters, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Robert Freytag & Kendra Lynn Carpenter. Credit Protection Association LP, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Charles Turner, Esq. -- jturner@sdtlawyers.com -- at Surdk Dowd & Turner Co LPA, Jennifer Kirby, Esq. -- jkirby@sdtlawyers.com -- at Surdyk Dowd & Turner, Co. LPA & Justin Penn, Esq. -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. DAKOTA GRANITE: MDL Plaintiffs May Supplement Expert Report ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs in the rail freight fuel surcharge antitrust litigation leave to file a supplemental expert report in support of their request for class certification. The plaintiffs have principally relied on Dr. Gordon Rausser's expert reports and testimony, but, were blindsided by evidence that indicates that Dr. Rausser has, for years, consulted with and invested in companies that buy out class action claims for profit -- including a claim or claims in the antitrust suit -- while serving as an expert witness in class action cases in the United States. Because Dr. Rausser's credibility has been drawn into serious question, the plaintiffs have moved for leave to file a supplemental expert report, limited in scope, to attest to the integrity and reliability of Dr. Rausser's expert analysis and methodologies. After careful consideration of the parties' briefs, exhibits, and the relevant legal costly proceedings, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs have established good cause because (1) the plaintiff class would suffer significant prejudice without the report and testimony of a supplemental expert, (2) there is no evidence in the record that plaintiffs or their counsel had knowledge of the information affecting Dr. Rausser's credibility until very recently, and (3) granting the motion will not be unduly burdensome or prejudicial to defendants. Moreover, any prejudice to the defendants will be mitigated by the imposition of strict limits on the supplemental expert, Judge Friedman said. The case is In re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL DOCKET NO. 1869, MISC. NO. 07-0489 (PLF)(D.D.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Friedman's Decision dated Nov. 26, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/NeEAE7from Leagle.com. RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION - MDL NO. 1869, represented by Roger M. Adelman, LAW OFFICES OF ROGER M. ADELMAN & Richard P. Rouco, WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC. DAKOTA GRANITE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq. -- abailey@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP, James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq. -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP, Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. -- rhagstrom@zelle.com -- ZELLE, HOFMANN, VOELBEL & MASON LLP, Scott W. Carlson, HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C., Vincent J. Esades, Esq. -- vesades@heinsmills.com -- HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C., Allen D. Black, Esq. -- ablack@finekaplan.com -- FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Brent W. Landau, Esq. -- blandau@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP, Douglas A. Millen, Esq. - - dmillen@fklmlaw.com -- FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, Steig D. Olson, Esq. -- steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C. & William P. Butterfield, Esq. -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD LLP. MCINTYRE GROUP, LTD., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, James Shedden, SCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C., Lawrence W. Schad, SCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C., Matthew S. Burns, SCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C. & Tony Kim, SCHAD DIAMOND & SHEDDEN P.C.. GVL PIPE & DEMOLITION, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Simon B. Paris, Esq. -- sparais@smbb.com -- at SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C., Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Daniel E. Gunstafson, Esq. -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, Donald L. Perelman, Esq. -- dperelman@finekaplan.com -- FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Jason S. Kilene, Esq. -- jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- at GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, Patrick Howard, Esq. -- phoward@smbb.com -- at SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. & Thomas A. Muzilla, THE MUZILLA LAW FIRM, LLC. FERRARO FOODS OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Mark A. Griffin, Esq. -- mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Raymond J. Farrow, Esq. -- rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP & T. David Copley, Esq. -- dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- at KELLER ROHRBACK LLP. SUBLETTE COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK & Krishna B. Narine, LAW OFFICE OF KRISHNA B. NARINE, P.C.. STRATES SHOWS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., HAUSFELD LLP, Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Brent W. Landau, HAUSFELD LLP, James Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Joanne Zack, BONI & ZACK LLC, Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. -- JSnyder@bonizack.com -- BONI & ZACK LLC, Michael J. Boni, Esq. -- MBoni@bonizack.com -- BONI & ZACK LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C. & William P. Butterfield, HAUSFELD LLP. WEST ALABAMA SAND & GRAVEL, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Joe R. Whatley, JR., WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, Richard P. Rouco, WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, Roger M. Adelman, LAW OFFICES OF ROGER M. ADELMAN & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. CEDAR FARMS CO., INC., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Paul Dietrich, WILLIAMS SCHIFINO MANGIONE & STEADY, PA, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Jeffrey B. Gittleman, BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE & William J. Schifino, Jr., WILLIAMS SCHIFINO MANGIONE & STEADY, P.A.. DAD'S PRODUCTS CO., INC., Plaintiff, represented by James Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Steig D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. ZINIFEX TAYLOR CHEMICALS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Mary Jane Fait, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. DUST PRO, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Greenwald, Esq. -- marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP, Michael P. Lehmann, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Paul M. Donovan, LAROE WINN, MOERMAN & DONOVAN, Steig D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq. -- stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP, William P. Butterfield, HAUSFELD LLP, Alicia Cobb, Esq. -- aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, Daniel Brockett, Esq. -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, John Potter, Esq. -- johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Joseph D. Hammond, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Kyle R. Taylor, Esq. -- kyletaylor@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Sami H. Rashid, Esq. -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq. -- sgosselin@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, Seth R. Gassman, Esq. -- sgassman@hausfeld.com -- at HAUSFELD, LLP & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C. QUALITY REFRACTORIES INSTALLATION, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Eugene A. Spector, Esq. -- espector@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR, ROSEMAN AND KODROFF PC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Jay S. Cohen, Esq. -- jcohen@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. & William G. Caldes, Esq. -- bcaldes@srkw- law.com -- SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.. NIZHNEKAMSKNEFTEKHIM USA, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. DONNELLY COMMODITIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, represented by Barry J. Nace, Esq. -- bjn@paulsonandnace.com -- PAULSON & NACE, Steig D. Olson, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. US MAGNESIUM LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Donovan, LAROE WINN, MOERMAN & DONOVAN, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. RB RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Michelle A. Parfitt, ASHCRAFT & GEREL, Richard P. Rouco, WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Susan Carole Minkin, ASHCRAFT & GEREL. M.C. DIXON LUMBER COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Craig L. Briskin, Esq. -- cbriskin@findjustice.com -- MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC, Steven A. Skalet, Esq. -- sskalet@findjustice.com -- MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. STERLING STEEL CO., LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Peterson, Esq. -- dmp@petersonlawfirm.com -- PETERSON & ASSOCIATES, PC, Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. -- jkronawitter@hab- law.com -- at HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLP, R. Keith Johnston, Esq. -- kjohnston@wbsvlaw.com -- WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. CEDAR CREEK WHOLESALE, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Barton, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, Paul F. Bennett, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC, Gwendolyn R. Giblin, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C., Steven O. Sidener, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP & Thomas C. Bright, GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP. ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, James Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Paul M. Weiss, FREED & WEISS LLC, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. -- danielc@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP, Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong Law Firm LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. FAYUS ENTERPRISES, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Esq. -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Reginald Terrell, THE TERRELL LAW GROUP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. AGWAY LIQUIDATING TRUST, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. STATELINE BEAN PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Adam C. Belsky, Esq. -- adam@gba-law.com -- GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP, Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, James Joseph Pizzirusso, HAUSFELD LLP & Terry Gross, Esq. -- terry@gba- law.com -- GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP. LANCASTER FOUNDRY SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. SOMERSET INDUSTRIES, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. -- Aranoff@bernlieb.com -- BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. MAROON INCORPORATED, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. COMPLETE TRANSPORATION SYSTEMS, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Adel A. Nadji, AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP, William M. Audet, AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. BLUE GRASS TOBACCO COMPANY, Consol Plaintiff, represented by James E. Cecchi, Esq. -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN, Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- at CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART & OLSTEIN, Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. -- sweiss@seagerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. CARTER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Theodore J. Leopold, Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, Douglas A. Millen, FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC & Steven A. Kanner, MUCH SHELIST FREED DENENBERG & AMENT, P.C.. UNITED CO-OPERATIVE FARMERS, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by H. Laddie Montague, Esq. -- hlmontague@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK & Eric L. Cramer, Esq. -- ecramer@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. BAR-ALE, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. ISSAC INDUSTRIES, INC., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert N. Kaplan, KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP & Allen D. Black, FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Andrew Santo Tulumello, Esq. -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P., David G. Meyer, Esq. -- dmeyer@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, Randy M. Mastro, Esq. -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P., Richard Joseph Favretto, MAYER BROWN LLP, Robert C. Walters, Esq. -- rwalters@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Shari Ross Lahlou, CROWELL & MORING LLP, Veronica S. Lewis, Esq. -- vlewis@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN &CRUTCHER LLP, David Daniel Cross, Esq. -- dcross@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP, Linda Sue Stein, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P., Michael E. Lackey, Jr., MAYER BROWN LLP & Samuel M. Sipe, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, L.L.P. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, represented by David Daniel Cross, CROWELL & MORING LLP, David G. Meyer, JONES DAY, Kent Alan Gardiner, CROWELL & MORING, L.L.P., George D. Ruttinger, Esq. -- gruttinger@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP, Kathryn D Kirmayer, Esq. -- kkirmayer@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING, L.L.P., Michael Wyld Lieberman, Esq. -- mlieberman@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP, Richard McMillan, Jr., CROWELL & MORING, L.L.P. & Shari Ross Lahlou, Esq. -- slahlou@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by David G. Meyer, JONES DAY, Jennifer B. Patterson, Esq. -- jennifer.patterson@kayescholer.com -- KAYE SCHOLER, LLP, John Murray Nannes, Esq. -- john.nannes@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Tara L. Reinhart, Esq. -- tara.reinhart@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Claudia R. Higgins, Esq. -- claudia.higgins@kayescholer.com - - KAYE SCHOLER, LLP, David Daniel Cross, CROWELL & MORING LLP, Saul P. Morgenstern, Esq. -- saul.morgenstern@kayescholer.com -- KAYE SCHOLER LLP & Sean M. Tepe, Esq. -- sean.tepe@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Alan Mitchell Wiseman, Esq. -- awiseman@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, James Scott Ballenger, Esq. -- scott.ballenger@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Thomas Adam Isaacson, Esq. -- tisaacson@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Tyrone R. Childress, Esq. -- tchildress@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, Alfred C Pfeiffer, Jr., LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Daniel M Wall, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, David Daniel Cross, CROWELL & MORING LLP, David G. Meyer, JONES DAY, Gregory P Lindstrom, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP & Timothy L. O'Mara, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD, Interested Party, represented by Virginia Strasser, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD. OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, Esq. -- jack.gerstein@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. OXBOW MINING, LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. OXBOW CALCINING INTERNATIONAL LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. OXBOW MIDWEST CALCINING LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. OXBOW CALCINING LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. TERROR CREEK LLC, Interested Party, represented by John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. JONATHAN LEE RICHES, doing business as ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT, Movant, Pro Se. DINESH PALIWAL, Movant, Pro Se. HUNTER PARRISH, Movant, Pro Se. PETER H. DIAMANDIS, Movant, Pro Se. SOUTHERN COMPANY, Intervenor, represented by Gabriela Richeimer, Esq. -- gaby.richeimer@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, John Richard Gerstein, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Barry J. Brett, Esq. -- barry.brett@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP & Daniel N. Anziska, Esq. -- daniel.anziska@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Intervenor, represented by Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. -- neimer@EimerStahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP, Scott C. Solberg, Esq. -- ssolberg@EimerStahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP & Stephen H. Weil, Esq. -- sweil@EimerStahl.com -- EIMER STAHL LLP. RAYONIER INC., Intervenor, represented by William J. Blechman, Esq. -- wblechman@kennynachwalter.com -- KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. & Richard Alan Arnold, Esq. -- rarnold@kennynachwalter.com -- KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.. DIMPFLMEIER: Recalls Pumpernickel Roggenbrot Due to Milk -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 24, 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: Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9485 Affected products: Delicatessen Rye Bread where milk is not declared on the label DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Orthodox Coconut Palm Coconut Juice -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 15, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Dingshing Trading Ltd., Emme Food Enterprises Co. Ltd., J. L. Trading Co. Ltd., JC Bunny Bunny Trading Co. Ltd., Merilin International Trading Inc., New World Imports Ltd., Uncle T Food Ltd., Wonden Enterprises Ltd., Kam Wah Resources Co. Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Possibly National, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9460 Industry is recalling Orthodox Coconut Palm brand coconut juice from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products described below. 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 milk, 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 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. ENDO HEALTH: Louisiana Health Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00721, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-10289 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas R. Plymale, Esq. Chad Joseph Primeaux, Esq. David Baylis Franco, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC One Canal Place, Suite 1000 365 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 355-0092 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: drplymale@plymalelawfirm.com cprimeaux@dugan-lawfirm.com dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com - and - Charles A. O'Brien, III, Esq. P.O. Box 98029 5525 Reitz Avenue Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9029 Telephone: (225) 295-2454 Facsimile: (225) 297-2760 E-mail: andy.o'brien@bcbsla.com Defendants Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. are represented by: Meera Unnithan Sossamon, Esq. Douglas J. Moore, Esq. Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr., Esq. IRWIN, FRITCHIE, URQUHART & MOORE, LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 310-2100 Facsimile: (504) 310-2101 E-mail: msossamon@irwinllc.com dmoore@irwinllc.com qurquhart@irwinllc.com EXCEL SECURITY: Accused of Discriminating Against Indian Worker --------------------------------------------------------------- Harinder Jeet Singh v. Excel Security Corp., RXR 620 Master Lease, LLC, RXR Property Management LLC, Securitas Security Services Corp., John Does 1-5 and ABC Corps. 1-5 (fictitious Names), Case No. 1:14-cv-10111 (S.D.N.Y., December 24, 2014) alleges that the Defendants has discriminated against the Plaintiff on account of his race (Asian) and national origin (Indian). Excel Guard Corporation and its affiliate, Excel Security Corp., are New York corporations with corporate offices located in New York City. Securitas Security Services Corp. is a New York corporation with corporate offices located in Brooklyn, New York. Excel provides security services to a building located at 620 6th Avenue, in New York City. The Building was managed by Newmark & Company Real Estate Inc. RXR Property Management, LLC is a New York limited liability company with offices located in New York City. RXR 620 Master Lease LLC is a New York limited liability company and, at all relevant times, was the record owner of the Building. The Doe Defendants are currently unknown. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Silberman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOEL SILBERMAN, ESQ. 549 Summit Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07306 Telephone: (201) 420-1913 Toll Free: (800)-889-3129 E-mail: joel@joelsilbermanlaw.com FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES: Recalls Smokey Sweet BBQ Meat Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 22, 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: Federated Co-Operatives Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9481 Federated Co-operatives Limited is recalling CO-OP The Marketplace brand Smokey Sweet BBQ meat 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. 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 products from the marketplace. FEDEX CORP: Defendant in a Number of Wage-and-Hour Cases -------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work "off the clock," were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. "We do not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible with respect to any of these matters," the Company said. FEDEX CORP: Provides Updates on Independent Contractor Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ FedEx Corporation, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, provided updates on the Independent Contractor - Lawsuits and State Administrative Proceedings. FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits (including 26 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors. Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). The Company said, "In sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit were stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme Court." "On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20 factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground has requested that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. During the second quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case that was required to be recognized pursuant to applicable accounting standards. This amount was immaterial. "The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three of these matters settled for immaterial amounts. The courts have granted final approval of two of the three settlements, while the other settlement remains subject to court approval. "One of the cases is on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and three cases, which had been decided in our favor by the respective district courts in Oregon and California, were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The last case is currently pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas. "On August 27, 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California and Oregon were employees as a matter of law. In each case, we asked the court to reconsider and petitioned for en banc review by the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied. On October 30, 2014, the cases were remanded to their respective district courts for further proceedings. "During the first quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in this case that was required to be recognized pursuant to applicable accounting standards. This amount was immaterial. Material exposure above the accrued amount, however, is reasonably possible, and accordingly we have undertaken a process to attempt to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss based on currently available information relating to the case. This process has included attempting to evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's loss. "For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued. The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of full-time drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on whatever criteria may be established. In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be produced in the case. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground's defenses, and on evidentiary issues. "With respect to the matters that are pending outside of the Ninth Circuit, it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material. We have undertaken a process to attempt to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss based on currently available information relating to these cases. Similar to our analysis of loss contingency in the Ninth Circuit cases, this process has included attempting to evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's loss. As a consequence of many of the same factors described above, as well as others that are specific to these cases, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. We do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters. "In addition, we are defending contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation. These cases are in varying stages of litigation, and we do not expect to incur a material loss in any of these matters. "Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent contractors, could, among other things, entitle certain of our owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and- hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in certain jurisdictions. We believe that FedEx Ground's owner- operators are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's independent contractors." FISHER & PAYKEL: Recalls Infant Radiant Warmers (2014-11-18) ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 18, 2014 Posting date: November 28, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42685 Recalled Products: Infant Radiant Warmers with Lot or serial number of 071116 to 090810/ 071208002349 to 090717000930 Fisher & Paykel Healthcare is issuing this voluntary recall notice because it has had two confirmed reports of breakage of the nut that secures the heater head in place. Breakage of the nut can cause the heater head to become partially detached and swing towards the bassinet. The heater head did not contact the patient in either case. However, there is the potential that a heater head could contact a patient situated on the bassinet and cause a serious injury. Companies: Manufacturer Fisher and Paykel Healthcare Ltd. 15 Maurice Paykel Place East Tamaki P.O. Box 14348 Panmure Auckland 2013 New Zealand FLUIDMASTER INC: "Rensel" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Steven Rensel, et al. v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00648, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-10251 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert Tort Product Liability claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeniphr A. E. Breckenridge, Esq. Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: jeniphr@hbsslaw.com tony@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com - and - Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq. Todd A. Seaver, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - Ria Momblanco, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK 1 South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 E-mail: rmomblanco@finekaplan.com - and - Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon B. Paris, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT AND BENDESKY PC 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: ckocher@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com sparis@smbb.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com The Defendant is represented by: Alyson R. Parker, Esq. James Chang, Esq. Kimberly L. Buffington, Esq. Mark D. Litvack, Esq. Kelly W. Craven, Esq. Mariah L. Brandt, Esq. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406 Telephone: (213) 488-7100 Facsimile: (213) 629-1033 E-mail: alyson.parker@pillsburylaw.com james.chang@pillsburylaw.com kbuffington@pillsburylaw.com mark.litvack@pillsburylaw.com kelly.craven@pillsburylaw.com mariah.brandt@pillsburylaw.com - and - Ernest L. Weiss, Esq. KLINEDINST PC 5 Hutton Center Drive, Suite 1000 Santa Ana, CA 92707-5756 Telephone: (714) 542-1800 Facsimile: (714) 542-3592 E-mail: eweiss@klinedinstlaw.com - and - Michael Christopher Carroll, Esq. CARROLL AND CARROLL PC 18101 Von Karman, Suite 330 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 340-7375 Facsimile: (949) 340-7379 E-mail: mcarroll@carrollpc.com FOX HILL: Recalls Gelato Due to Underprocessing ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 19, 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: 9414 FRED DEELEY: Recalls Tri Glide Ultra (FLHTCUTG) Model ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 25, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 49 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014533 TC ID number: 2014533 On certain motorcycles, a defective rear brake master cylinder could cause a reduction in rear braking performance. This could increase stopping distances or cause rear brake fade, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will replace the brake master cylinder with a revised unit. Affected products: 2015 Harley-Davidson Tri Glide Ultra (FLHTCUTG) FRY'S ELECTRONICS: "Ramos" Suit Proceeds to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------- Fry's Electronics Inc. hired Leo Ramos as a customer service representative and car electronics technician. On the day Ramos was hired, a Fry's employee requested that he sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of his employment. Ramos filed a class action complaint against Fry's for unpaid overtime and various other Labor Code violations, including failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay wages in a timely manner, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Ramos further alleged that each of these acts constituted an unlawful business practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and requested an order for restitution and injunctive relief. Ramos sought to bring each of these claims individually, as well as on behalf of each and all other persons similarly situated. In addition to his claims for damages and restitution, Ramos alleged a representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), seeking to collect penalties for each Labor Code violation on behalf of all aggrieved employees in his capacity as private attorney general. Fry's filed a petition to compel Ramos to arbitrate each of his claims on an individual basis. Fry's argued the language of the parties' agreement made clear Ramos had agreed to arbitrate any claim arising from his employment. Fry's further asserted that because the agreement contained no language suggesting that the parties had contemplated class or representative arbitration, Ramos was required to arbitrate all of his claims on an individual basis. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that: (1) the agreement's class arbitration waiver was unenforceable pursuant to the ruling in Gentry v. Superior Court, and (2) any waiver of Ramos's right to pursue a representative PAGA claim was contrary to public policy and unenforceable. Fry's appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the California Supreme Court issued Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian), which held that: (1) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Gentry's rule against class arbitration waivers in employment contracts; and (2) the FAA does not preempt California's rule prohibiting the waiver of representative PAGA claims. In light of Iskanian ruling, Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, reverses the trial court's order denying Fry's motion to compel arbitration, in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate case is, LEO RAMOS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. B246404 (Cal. App.). A copy of Justice Zelon's opinion is available at http://is.gd/14gmSkfrom Leagle.com Abraham Matthew -- abraham@mathewandgeorge.com -- Jacob George -- jacob@mathewandgeorge.com and Mazyar Mazarei -- mazyar@mathewandgeorge.com -- at Matthew & George, for Plaintiff and Respondent Richard J. Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- and Matthew M. Sonne -- msonne@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton for Defendant and Appellant The panel of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss. J. Segal and Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon GLAVAL: Recalls Entourage, Titan and Universal Models ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 21, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 11 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014530 TC ID number: 2014530 Manufacturer recall number: 14E-041 On certain buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at risk of injury. Dealers will inspect lift platforms for cracks and repair as necessary, and install a repair kit. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- GLAVAL UNIVERSAL 2006, 2008, 2010 GLAVAL TITAN 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 GLAVAL ENTOURAGE 2011 HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown & "Lohela" Case Can Proceed as Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Beeler of the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case ROSMINAH BROWN and ERIC LOHELA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, No. C 11-03082 LB (N.D. Cal.) Hain is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and distributes cosmetic products under the Jason and Avalon Organics. Plaintiffs Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela both bought several different Avalon Organics and Jason Cosmetic products, in which both of them believed that the products are either completely or at least mostly comprised organic ingredients. The plaintiffs allege that Hain advertises, markets, and labels the challenged products as organic, when they contain insufficient organic content to lawfully make such claims. They sued Hain on behalf of themselves and other consumers in violation of: (1) the California Organic Products Act of 2003 (COPA), Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 110810, et seq.; (2) the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (3) the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; and the California Commercial Code provision regarding express warranties, Cal. Com. Code Section 2313. The plaintiffs move for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) or, alternatively, 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to strike the Ugone and Mencarelli declaration. Magistrate Judge Beeler granted plaintiffs' motion to certify two Rule 23(b)(3) classes, one for each product line. The Jason Class," defined as: All persons who purchased a personal-care product in California sold under the Jason brand name between May 12, 2007 and January 31, 2011 other than those Jason brand personal-care products that are USDA-certified as organic." The "Avalon Organics Class" is defined as: "All persons who purchased a personal-care product in California sold under the Avalon Organics brand name between May 12, 2007 and the present other than those Avalon Organics brand personal-care products that are USDA-certified as organic." Judge Beeler denied Plaintiffs' motion to strike the declaration of economist Keith R. Ugone and the "Mencarelli" declaration as moot. Hain offered Ugone's testimony. The Court also denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment without prejudice as premature and denied Hulu's motions to strike. A copy of Magistrate Judge Beeler' order dated November 14, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/CAyTPNfrom Leagle.com. Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela, Plaintiffs, represented by Lisa Margaret Burger -- lburger@lexlawgroup.com -- Howard Judd Hirsch - - hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com -- Mark N. Todzo -- at Lexington Law Group, LLP; Behram Viraf Parekh -- bvp@KirtlandPackard.com -- Heather Marie Baker -- hmp@KirtlandPackard.com -- Amir David Benakote -- Michael Louis Kelly -- mlk@KirtlandPackard.com -- at Kirtland & Packard LLP The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Kathleen Brenna Roney -- kroney@mofo.com -- William J. Friedman, IV, and William Lewis Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP QAI, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Robert Laurence Rosenthal, Attorney at Law NSF International, Interested Party, represented by Robert Laurence Rosenthal, Attorney at Law HERTZ CORP: Faces "Ketibe" Suit Alleging Job Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Nadif Ketibe, Abdiraxman Abdi-Sheikh, Daud Farah, Deek Gelle, Muhsin Abdikarim f/k/a Mohamud Abdulkadir, and Abdirashid Mohammed, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hertz Corporation, The, Case No. 0:14-cv-05058-RHK-JSM (D. Minn., December 23, 2014) alleges job discrimination (employment). The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryce M. Miller, Esq. Lawrence P. Schaefer, Esq. Darren M. Sharp, Esq. SCHAEFER HALLEEN LLC 412 South Fourth Street, Suite 1050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 294-2600 Facsimile: (612) 294-2640 E-mail: bmiller@schaeferhalleen.com lschaefer@schaeferhalleen.com dsharp@schaeferhalleen.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: June 8 Final Approval Hearing in "Cunningham" -------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the final approval hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2015, on the settlement in the case Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation. Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, was filed on October 23, 2007 in the same court alleging similar facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of a class consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter. On December 11, 2013, HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter, and the Salva matter described below, mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on November 4, 2014. The final approval hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2015. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Approval Hearing in "Salva" Case on June 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the final approval hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2015, on the settlement in the case Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company. Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York alleging that certain information technology employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On December 11, 2013, HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter and the Salva matter mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court consolidated the Salva matter into the Cunningham/Steavens matter and preliminarily approved the settlement on November 4, 2014. The final approval hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2015. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Case Engaged in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed on March 16, 2009 in California Superior Court alleging facts similar to the Cunningham and Steavens matters. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Approved Settlement in "Blake" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the court approved the settlement and dismissed the case Blake, et al. v. Hewlett- Packard Company with prejudice. Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company was filed as a purported nationwide collective action on February 17, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming that a class of information technology support personnel had been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On February 10, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the court conditionally certify the case as a collective action. On July 11, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in its entirety. Following the denial of class certification, the case has continued as an individual action on behalf of the named plaintiff and one other employee. The parties have reached an agreement to resolve this matter with the two plaintiffs agreeing to settle their individual claims and release any other claims they may have against HP. The court approved the settlement on August 19, 2014, and dismissed the case with prejudice on September 9, 2014. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Benedict" Case in Discovery -------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the parties are engaged in discovery in the case Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company. Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP violated California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13, 2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification. The parties are engaged in discovery. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Deadline to Appeal in "Gammel" Suit Has Passed --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the court granted final approval of the settlement in the case Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., and HP and certain of its insurers paid approximately $57 million pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. The deadline to appeal the court's grant of final approval has passed and the court's judgment is now final. Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on September 13, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010 to August 18, 2011, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP's business model, the future of the webOS operating system, and HP's commitment to developing and integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad tablet PC. On April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On September 4, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and gave the plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. On October 19, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same causes of action but dropping one of the defendants and shortening the period that the alleged violations of the Exchange Act occurred to February 9, 2011 to August 18, 2011. On December 3, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 8, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. As a result of the court's ruling, the alleged class period in the action runs from June 1, 2011 to August 18, 2011. The parties commenced mediation before a private mediator and on March 31, 2014, the parties executed a settlement stipulation. On September 15, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement and HP and certain of its insurers paid approximately $57 million pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. The deadline to appeal the court's grant of final approval has passed and the court's judgment is now final. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Brief Filed in Cement & Concrete Workers Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the plaintiff- appellant in the case Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. filed its opening brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP. On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September 9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 24, 2013. On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Feb. 20 Hearing on Class Certification Motion -------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for February 20, 2015 in the case HP Securities Litigation. In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP's enterprise services business. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging in a "scheme" to defraud investors. On July 2, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 26, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss, allowing claims to proceed against HP and Margaret C. Whitman based on alleged statements and/or omissions made on or after May 23, 2012. The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that were based on alleged statements and/or omissions made between August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on November 4, 2014 and, on December 15, 2014, defendants filed their opposition to the motion. The hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for February 20, 2015. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jan. 23 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that a hearing on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case HP ERISA Litigation is scheduled for January 23, 2015. In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict participants from investing in HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 31, 2014, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss this action with leave to amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint containing substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially similar relief as the first amended complaint. HP moved to dismiss the second amended complaint and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for January 23, 2015. HINO: Recalls XFC Model Due to Loss of Motive Power --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 27 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014524 TC ID number: 2014524 On certain hybrid trucks, the output shaft of the hybrid vehicle motor could break, causing a loss of motive power. This could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will replace the motor with an updated design having an improved output shaft. Affected products: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 HINO XFC HOME DEPOT: "Burris" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Burris v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00396, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04054-TWT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT. The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data network in late April or early May 2014. The data network contained the personal financial information of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The data breach was first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security blogger. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bartley K. Hagerman, Esq. Erik David Peterson, Esq. M. Austin Mehr, Esq. Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq. MEHR FAIRBANKS TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 201 W. Short Street, Suite 800 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 225-3731 Facsimile: (859) 225-3830 The Defendant is represented by: Daniel E. Danford, Esq. STITES & HARBISON PLLC 2300 Lexington Financial Center 250 W. Main Street Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 226-2292 Facsimile: (859) 253-9144 E-mail: ddanford@stites.com HOME DEPOT: "Chorman" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Chorman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01180, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04077- TWT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT. The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data network in late April or early May 2014. The data network contained the personal financial information of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The data breach was first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security blogger. HOME DEPOT: "First NBC" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled First NBC Bank v. Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02182, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04070- TWT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT. The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data network in late April or early May 2014. The data network contained the personal financial information of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The data breach was first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security blogger. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Barnett Murray, Esq. Arthur Mahony Murray, Esq. Korey Arthur Nelson, Esq. Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM Poydras Center, Suite 2150 650 Poydras St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8100 Facsimile: (504) 584-5249 E-mail: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com amurray@murray-lawfirm.com knelson@murray-lawfirm.com smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Carmelite M. Bertaut, Esq. STONE, PIGMAN, WALTHER, WITTMANN, LLC (NEW ORLEANS) 546 Carondelet St. New Orleans, LA 70130-3588 Telephone: (504) 581-3200 Facsimile: (504) 596-0898 E-mail: cbertaut@stonepigman.com HOME DEPOT: Sued by First National Bank in Georgia District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- First National Bank, USA, Individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial institutions v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04058-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 23, 2014) alleges breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, Esq. W. Pitts Carr, Esq. W. PITTS CARR AND ASSOCIATES, PC Building 10 4200 Northside Parkway, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 442-9000 Facsimile: (404) 442-9700 E-mail: aweatherby@wpcarr.com pcarr@wpcarr.com HOME DEPOT: "Earls" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Earls, et al. v. Home Depot, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04315, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04081-TWT to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re The Home Depot, Inc. Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT. The Plaintiffs in the actions allege that Home Depot, the world's largest home improvement retailer, allowed computer hackers to gain access to its data network in approximately late April or early May 2014. The data network contained the personal financial information of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The Plaintiffs contend that the ramifications of this security breach are severe because the thieves can use the financial information to create fake credit and debit cards that can be used to commit fraud and other crimes. The data breach was first reported on September 2, 2014 by a computer security blogger. HOME DEPOT: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Provide Breaks -------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Flores, on behalf of herself and as a representative v. Home Depot USA, Inc.; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC566293 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 10, 2014) alleges that Home Depot failed to relieve the Plaintiff for required 10 minute rest periods every four hours, and failed to pay the Plaintiff labor code premiums for the required rest periods it did not provide. Home Depot USA, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that is licensed to do business in the state of California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence W. Freiman, Esq. Michael J. Freiman, Esq. FREIMAN LAW 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 940 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 917-1024 Facsimile: (888) 835-8511 E-mail: lawrence@freimanlaw.com michael@freimanlaw.com HUMANA INC: Removes "Shively" Suit to California District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Jill Shively v. Humana Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2014-00751609, 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. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-02048-DOC-DFM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff and Class Members as being exempt from overtime and unlawfully failed to pay them overtime wages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. THE COOPER LAW FIRM PC 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 724-9200 Facsimile: (949) 724-9255 E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com - and - Roger Richard Carter, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-4737 Facsimile: (949) 260-4754 E-mail: roger@carterlawfirm.net - and - Marc H. Phelps, Esq. THE PHELPS LAW GROUP 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-9111 Facsimile: (949) 260-4754 E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Rafael G. Nendel-Flores, Esq. Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq. Christian Keeney, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC Park Tower, Suite 1500 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-7900 Facsimile: (714) 754-1298 E-mail: rafael.nendel-flores@ogletreedeakins.com allison.eckstrom@ogletreedeakins.com christian.keeney@ogletreedeakins.com INTERSTATE HOTELS: Removes "Unutoa" Class Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Raymond Unutoa v. Interstate Hotels and Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. BC563943, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-09809 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought for claims under Labor/Management Relations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew John Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 399-7000 Facsimile: (949) 399-7001 E-mail: cgonell@morganlewis.com - and - Jason S. Mills, Esq. Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Esq. Rebecca L. Jensen, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: jmills@morganlewis.com kmcguigan@morganlewis.com rjensen@morganlewis.com ISUZU: Recalls Reach Van Model Due to Bending and Corrosion ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 30 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014521 TC ID number: 2014521 Manufacturer recall number: DET-14-199 On certain vehicles, the brake lamp switch can bend and/or corrode. In some circumstances, the ABS or the Brake Warning lamp may illuminate. Bending or corrosion to the brake lamp switch could lead to inoperative brake lamps, which could increase the risk of crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will apply a protector and waterproof cover with an extension harness to prevent bending and corrosion. Affected products: 2012, 2013 Isuzu Reach Van JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tex. Court Dismisses Johnson v. Drake Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant William Drake and plaintiff The Johnson Law Firm entered into a contract entitled "Attorney Representation Agreement" under which the plaintiff agreed to represent the defendant in a class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson for a hip replacement implanted on Mr. Drake. The contract provided for a contingent fee of 40% of all sums recovered on the defendant's claims, plus all costs and expenses advanced by the plaintiff, and a lien on the defendant's claims, proceeds, or judgments recovered in connection therewith. The contact included a Texas choice-of-law provision, and provided that all disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant arising out of the contract would be resolved through arbitration in Fort Worth, Texas. On Nov. 30, 2012, the defendant sent written notice to the plaintiff terminating the plaintiff's representation under the contract. The Plaintiff filed a complaint, which included an application to compel arbitration, and alternative request for a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff is entitled to recover 40% of all sums recovered on the defendant's claims related to the defective product. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and improper venue, or alternatively, to transfer venue. Judge John McBryde of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, in a memorandum opinion and order dated Nov. 25, 2014, concluded that the action should be dismissed because of the failure of the plaintiff to establish the court's in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. The case is STEVEN M. JOHNSON, PC, DBA THE JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM DRAKE, Defendant, NO. 4:14-CV-611-A (E.D. Tex.). A full-text copy of Judge McBryde's Decision is available at http://is.gd/h3P9wvfrom Leagle.com. Stephen M Johnson PC, Plaintiff, represented by Barry N Johnson & Tom Needham, Needham Johnson. William Drake, Defendant, represented by Ashleigh Elizabeth Raso, Esq. -- araso@meshbesher.com -- at Meshbesher & Spence LTD, Anthony J Nemo, Esq. -- tnemo@meshbesher.com -- at Meshbesher & Spence Ltd & Karin Knowles Cagle, Esq. -- kcagle@kbblawyers.com -- at Kirkley & Berryman LLP. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tex. Court Dismisses Johnson v. Partee Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John McBryde of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, in a Nov. 26, 2014, memorandum opinion and order, dismissed a complaint filed by the law firm The Johnson Law Firm against Patricia Moulton Partee, for failure of the plaintiff to establish the court's in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. The law firm is seeking fees from the defendant under their attorney representation contract, which the defendant terminated. The underlying claim for which the plaintiff is seeking fees concerns a Johnson & Johnson DePuy ASR hip replacement implanted in the defendant. The law firm is one of the attorneys handling the class action against Johnson & Johnson. The case is STEVEN M. JOHNSON, PC, DBA THE JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA MOULTON PARTEE, Defendant, NO. 4:14-CV-613- A (E.D. Tex.). A full-text copy of Judge McBryde's Decision is available at http://is.gd/DtM33ifrom Leagle.com. Steven M. Johnson, PC, dba The Johnson Law Firm, Plaintiff, represented by Barry N Johnson & Tom Needham, Needham Johnson. Patricia Moulton Partee, Defendant, represented by Karin Knowles Cagle, Kirkley & Berryman LLP, Donald S Edgar, Edgar Law Firm & Rex Grady, Edgar Law Firm. KAYTEL MEDIA: Recalls King Brand Disposable Lighters ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 17, 2014 Posting date: November 17, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Miscellaneous Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42193 Affected products: King brand disposable lighters The recall involves King brand disposable lighters imported and distributed by Kaytel Media Group Inc. The lighters were sold in various colours and are identified by model number A3K. The recalled lighters were sold with novelty adult lighter holders in the shape of a nude male or female torso. These lighters do not meet the performance testing requirements outlined in the Lighters Regulations. These products can pose these problems: -- the lighters may exceed the allowable flame heights during ignition, and -- the lighters may continue to burn after the trigger mechanism has been released. Neither Kaytel Media Group Inc. nor Health Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these lighters. Approximately 144 recalled lighters were sold Canada. The recalled lighters were manufactured in Thailand and sold from November 2013 to November 2014. Companies: Importer Kaytel Media Group Inc. St-Laurent Quebec Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lighters and dispose of them following municipal waste guidelines. KEYSTONE: Recalls Aerolite & Rubicon Models Due to Short Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 370 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014519 TC ID number: 2014519 Manufacturer recall number: 14-217 On certain travel trailers, the wiring to the 12V breakers located by the battery may not be connected to the protected terminal of the breaker. This could result in an electrical short on the unprotected circuit, increasing the risk of a fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will verify the wiring to the breakers is connected to the protected terminal, and if not, make the necessary correction. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- DUTCHMEN RUBICON 2014, 2015 DUTCHMEN AEROLITE 2014, 2015 KMART CORP: Faces Suit Arising From Credit Card Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jack Bouboushian reports that Kmart's failure to protect customer information with "elementary" security measures left banks liable for the resulting fraud, an Illinois federal class action claims. First NBC Bank filed the class action December 16 against Kmart Corp. and parent company Sears Holding Corp, regarding an announcement that hackers had breached Kmart's payment-data systems in early September. Kmart warned that customers who had used a credit card there for the past five weeks may have had their financial information stolen. First NBC Bank says the infiltration occurred because Kmart's outdated anti-virus system had not been updated to detect the malware that the hackers used. "POS registers at its stores were infected with software that stole customer credit and debit card information from the registers," the complaint states, using the abbreviation for point of sale. Target fell victim to this same strategy in 2013, but Kmart made no efforts to protect its customers' data amid evidence that it was vulnerable to a similar attack, the bank claims. "The deficiencies in Kmart's security system include a lack of elementary security measures that even the most inexperienced IT professional could identify as problematic," according to the complaint. First NBC Bank says that Kmart's security system did not measure up to core security standards that the payment card industry requires of merchants. Visa allegedly warned of the specific threats to which Kmart fell victim as early as 2009. "Despite the fact that defendants were put on notice of the very real possibility of consumer data theft associated with their security practices and despite the fact that defendants knew or, at the very least, should have known about the elementary infirmities associated with the Kmart security systems, they still failed to make necessary changes to their security practices and protocols," the bank says. This alleged negligence left the card-issuing banks and institutions liable for fraudulent card activity, as well as the cost of identity protection measures. "Defendants' public statements to customers after the data breach plainly indicate that defendants believe that card-issuing institutions should be responsible for fraudulent charges on cardholder accounts resulting from the data breach," the complaint states. "While Kmart has made free credit monitoring available to consumers affected by the data breach, it has made no overtures to the card-issuing institutions that are left to pay for damages as a result of the breach." Kmart has not revealed how many customers the breach affected. First NBC seeks damages for violation of the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act, fraud, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori A. Fanning, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 Facsimile: (312) 676-2676 E-mail: lfanning@millerlawllc.com LA COUNTRY CLUB: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Morales, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The Los Angeles Country Club, a California corporation, and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. BC566493 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 11, 2014) alleges that the Defendant violates various wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and premium wages owed for missed, untimely and interrupted meal and rest periods. The Los Angeles Country Club is a California corporation headquartered in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. Jennifer L. Connor, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com jconnor@ckslaw.com LINKEDEN CORPORATION: N.D. Cal. Judge Narrows "Perkins" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss the case entitled PAUL PERKINS et al., Plaintiffs, v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-04303-LHK (N.D. Cal.) Defendant LinkedIn is a for-profit social networking website geared toward professional networking with more than 200 million users. It generates its revenue primarily on three avenues namely, "Talent Solutions, Marketing Solutions and Sale of Premium Subscriptions". It seeks to grow its membership because the success of the three revenue streams is directly related to the number of registered LinkedIn users. Plaintiffs are nine professionals who seek to represent a nationwide class of LinkedIn users. Plaintiffs allege that during the sign up process LinkedIn harvested the email addresses of Plaintiffs' contacts as well as the email addresses of every person who has either emailed Plaintiffs, been emailed by Plaintiffs, or who has been carbon copied on an email to or from Plaintiffs. LinkedIn sent emails to these addresses purportedly on behalf of the LinkedIn user, inviting the recipient to join. LinkedIn sent these emails without plaintiffs' knowledge or consent. In their second amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege only three causes of action; (1) violation of California's common law right of publicity; (2) violation of California's statutory right of publicity, Cal. Civ. Code section 3344; and (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law or UCL. LinkedIn asks the Court to dismiss the entire second amended complaint with prejudice or, in the alternative, to dismiss Plaintiffs' request for minimum statutory damages under section 3344. Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, in her Order dated November 13, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/9N3thGfrom Leagle.com. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the second amended complaint for the limited purpose of correcting the deficiencies to the section 3344 claim. The Court said it does not find undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive by Plaintiffs, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or undue prejudice to LinkedIn. Paul Perkins, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat Pennie Sempell, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat Ann Brandwein, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat Erin Eggers, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat Jake Kushner, Plaintiff, represented by Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP Natalie Richstone, Plaintiff, represented by Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP Nicole Crosby, Plaintiff, represented by Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP Clare Connaughton, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat Leslie Wall, Plaintiff, represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Russ August & Kabat, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Dorian Seawind Berger, Russ, August, and Kabat & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat LinkedIn Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP &Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq., Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP LOC-SKY TRADING: Recalls Honghong Crisp Cakes Walnut Cracker ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 25, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Loc-Sky Trading Co. Ltd. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail, Retail CFIA reference number: 9486 Loc-Sky Trading Co. Ltd., is recalling Macau Honghong brand Crisp Cakes Walnut Cracker from the marketplace because it may contain peanut which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut should not consume the recalled product. 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 peanut, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There has been one reported reaction associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (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. LOWE'S HOME: Discriminates Against Gay Employees, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Haimowitz v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Case No. 7:14-cv- 10080-VB (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2014) alleges that the Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against its employees because of their sexual orientation and in discriminating against employees for failing to adhere to the stereotypical gender roles. Mr. Haimowitz is a gay male residing in the County of White Plains, New York. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC is a foreign limited liability company duly existing pursuant to and by virtue of the laws of the state of North Carolina. Lowe's operates a chain of retail home improvement and appliance stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Todd Smith, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 30 Broad Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 587-0760 Facsimile: (212) 587-4169 E-mail: dtslaws@msn.com LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Removes "Berenato" Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Adam Berenato v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2014-00755578-CU-PO-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-02038-JVS-RNB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over labor-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive, No 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Gerald Ly, Esq. Keith A. Jacoby, Esq. Judy M. Iriye, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: aly@littler.com kjacoby@littler.com jiriye@littler.com MACK: Recalls CHU and CXU Models Due to Ball Sockets ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 20, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 4000 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014526 TC ID number: 2014526 Manufacturer recall number: SC0385 On certain vehicles, the collars that prevent the ball sockets from backing out of the tie rod may have been incorrectly positioned. If the ball socket(s) became loose, a complete loss of steering or loss of steering at one wheel end could occur, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, reposition the collar. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- MACK CXU 2015 MACK CHU 2015 MACK: Recalls CHU, CXU, GU and TD Models Due to Module ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: November 20, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 11848 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014527 TC ID number: 2014527 Manufacturer recall number: SC0375 On certain model vehicles, water around the windshield can migrate into the Electronic Power Distribution Module and contaminate it. As a result, circuits may be bridged creating an electrical short. This could potentially result in a fire, increasing the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will inspect the module, and if found contaminated, will replace it. Additional measures will be taken to address the leak if contamination is found. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2014-053. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- MACK CXU 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MACK CHU 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MACK GU 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MACK TD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Zaccagnini" Suit Over Faulty Fuel Tanks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Zaccagnini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC, and Does 1 Through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2014-00761919 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., December 17, 2014) is brought on behalf of California consumers, who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased 2010-2014 model year Mercedes vehicles equipped with alleged defective fuel tanks that prevent refueling. The defective design and manufacture creates an inability to refuel the Subject Vehicles and often leads to safety hazards such as gasoline spewing out of the fuel tank, according to the complaint. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Montvale, New Jersey. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Chavez, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. Samuel P. Cheadle, Esq. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 381-5599 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572 E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com christian@chavezgertler.com sam@chavezgertler.com - and - Jose R. Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY, APLC 9861 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 208-3400 Facsimile: (949) 713-0432 E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com MIMEDX GROUP: Shareholder Class Suit Over False Claims Continues ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders may pursue claims that a biomaterials distributor caused them financial losses by falsely touting its products as exempt from federal drug regulation, reports Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Georgia-based MiMedx Group, a global processor and distributor of human amniotic tissue, developed several products that help regenerate damaged or diseased tissue, enhance healing, and reduce scar formation. In a September 2013 class action lawsuit, shareholders claimed that MiMedx misrepresented to investors that AmnioFix and EpiFix, two products designed to speed up the healing process, would qualify as human cell and tissue-based products exempt from federal drug regulation, despite knowing that the products could not meet the "minimally manipulated" criterion for the exemption. The company also failed to disclose that the Food and Drug Administration inspected MiMedx facilities in 2012 to determine if the injectable products qualified for the exemption, according to the complaint. MiMedx stock fell 36 percent, from $6.06 per share to $3.85 per share, when the company released a September 2013 letter from the FDA stating that AmnioFix and EpiFix did not meet the requirements for the exemption, according to the lawsuit. Although the stock price rebounded to $6.76 per share three months later, when MiMedx announced it would seek FDA approval for the injectable products, investors who bought stock between March 2012 and September 2013 claimed the company's misleading statements had caused them financial losses. MiMedx and its executives countered that they had disclosed the risks of marketing the injectable products without FDA approval, and thus were not responsible for any economic losses shareholders allegedly suffered. But U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash refused to dismiss the claims in August, finding that the plaintiffs had offered sufficient evidence that MiMedx may have misled investors. The company continued to report in its securities filings that it believed the products would be exempt from drug regulation, despite an FDA report that showed the products were under increased scrutiny, according to the Aug. 13 ruling. Since MiMedx executives knew the company was using procedures that generally disqualify biomaterials from the exemption, and were aware the FDA was scrutinizing their products, they likely knew the agency would not classify the products as exempt, according to the ruling. Even though MiMedx stock prices recovered in less than three months after the disclosure, the court could not conclude that shareholders had suffered no economic losses due to the previous drop in value. Thrash denied MiMedx's motion for reconsideration in the first week of December, finding that the company merely tried to repackage arguments that the court had previously dismissed. MiMedx failed to show that the court improperly considered an executive's stock sales shortly before the drop in price as evidence that MiMedx knew the products would not be exempt, the Dec. 2 ruling states. Moreover, MiMedx cannot ask the court to reconsider dismissing the shareholders' claims based on arguments it failed to raise in its original motion, Thrash ruled. Attorneys for MiMedx did not respond to a request for comment. The case is In re Mimedx Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-03074-TWT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. MASSACHUSETTS: Legislature Should Fix Foster Care System -------------------------------------------------------- The responsibility for fixing Massachusetts' seriously flawed foster care system resides with the state's legislature, not the courts, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a 1st Circuit ruling. The ruling stems from a class action filed against the state by the guardians six foster care children on behalf of the estimated 85,000 children currently enrolled in the program. Among other problems they cite, the plaintiffs claim that foster care children in Massachusetts are abused at nearly four times the national average, and that several of six child plaintiffs suffered instances of rape, sexual abuse, beatings, force-feeding, and other maltreatment. "There is a common understanding in this case, shared by both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the plaintiffs, that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families' (DCF) administration of the foster care system has flaws and is in need of improvement. In some instances, these flaws have led to horrific and heartbreaking outcomes for children," Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch wrote at the beginning of in her 40- page opinion. Among the horror stories detailed in the plaintiff's original complaint are those of Dontel Jeffers, who died at 4, allegedly after his foster mother tied him to a radiator and kicked him until his bladder burst; Acia Johnson, who died at 14, allegedly after her mother's boyfriend lit their house on fire; Isaiah Barboza, 4, who was hospitalized for second-degree burns from being scalded with boiling water; and an unidentified 4-year-old, who needed skin graft surgery after his foster brother burned him with a hair-straightening iron. Named plaintiff Connor B., now age 13, claims he was sexually abused in his first foster care placement, and has since been moved at least six times. He also spent 4 1/2 months in a locked psychiatric unit when he was 6, according to the complaint. "The plaintiffs have articulated convincing moral arguments that Massachusetts should do better," Lynch said. But the children have not shown the state violated their constitutional rights, the court found. "Having reviewed the voluminous record, the evidence simply does not show that DCF has substantially departed from accepted professional judgment, much less that it departed so substantially as to show that such judgment was not exercised," the three-judge panel ruled. The children, represented by New York-based non-profit Children's Rights, sought a permanent injunction forbidding the state from violating their civil rights, and remedial relief limiting the caseload of foster care case workers, enhanced education and training, a top-to-bottom review of the state's child-care system to determine the need for additional services and placements, stepped up monitoring of the safety of children in foster care placements, and creation of a new child-parent and sibling visitation program, and other measures. But while DCF has failed to comport with national standards, it is "actively improving, and the Due Process Clause does not require that the defendants instantly fix all deficiencies in the foster care system," Lynch wrote. The court said that DCF has fulfilled its professional responsibility by identifying problems, and addressing them in the order it believes best within its budgetary limitations. "Improvements in the system must come through the normal state political processes. The problems are now for the Governor and legislature of Massachusetts to resolve," Lynch concluded. The Appellants are represented by: Sara M. Bartosz, Esq. Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq. Rachel B. Nili, Esq. Sarah T. Russo, Esq. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 330 Seventh Ave., Fourth Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 E-mail: mlowry@childrensrights.org - and - Mary K. Ryan, Esq. Daniel J. Gleason, Esq. Jonathan D. Persky, Esq. NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP Seaport West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-2212 Facsimile: (617) 310-9212 E-mail: mryan@nutter.com dgleason@nutter.com The Appellees are represented by: Liza J. Tran, Esq. Martha Coakley, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, MASSACHUSETTS One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1518 Telephone: (617) 727-2200 The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Andrew C. Glass, Esq. Stacey L. Gorman, Esq. K&L GATES LLP State Street Financial Center One Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111-2950 Telephone: (617) 261-3100 Facsimile: (617) 261-3175 E-mail: andrew.glass@klgates.com stacey.gorman@klgates.com The case is Connor B., et al. v. Deval L. Patrick, in his capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Case No. 13-2467, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Recalls Altitude Shag Gold Rug ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 19, 2014 Posting date: November 19, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42239 Affected products: Altitude Shag Gold Rug Mohawk Industries, Inc. has recently become aware that the rugs do not meet federal flammability standard for large rugs and do not have the required flammability label for small rugs. Neither Health Canada nor Mohawk Industries, Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product. Approximately 2,888 recalled rugs were sold in Canada and approximately 101,000 in the United States exclusively sold at The Home Depot stores and online. The recalled rugs were manufactured in India and sold from February 2014 to September 2014 in Canada and the United States. Companies: Manufacturer Riviera Home Furnishings Pvt. Ltd. INDIA Importer Mohawk Industries, Inc. Calhoun Georgia United States Consumers should stop using the recalled rugs and contact Mohawk to receive a refund for the 4'11" x 7' and 7' x 10' rugs. Consumers who purchased the 2' x 3' rug should contact Mohawk to receive a warning label to be affixed to the backside of the rug. MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Blamed by Mom Over Death of Son in Jail ------------------------------------------------------------ A 33-year-old man died in Monterey County Jail from lack of medical attention to his flu and pneumonia so severe he coughed up blood, his family claims in court, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. The Dec. 16 lawsuit comes as the jail faces a federal class action accusing it of substandard conditions, including poor medical care. Jacob Parenti died in jail on Jan. 15, his mother and son claim in the federal lawsuit. They sued the county; Sheriff Scott Miller; Officer Collins; the California Forensic Medical Group, the Monterey jail's private medical provider; and the medical group's president Taylor Fithian. Parenti developed flu-like symptoms and started coughing up blood on Jan. 10, the family says. He was serving a one-year jail term for a probation violation after marijuana was found in his car. Though he placed two sick call requests, he was not seen by medical staff, his family says. On the day Parenti died, Officer Collins announced sick call on the jail's D-wing, but Parenti did not respond. Collins found Parenti lying on his bunk, unresponsive and breathing laboriously, according to the complaint. After tapping and shaking him, Collins left without seeking medical attention, the family says. An hour later other inmates "noticed that [Parenti] had stopped breathing and his face had a bluish tint," the complaint states. He died an hour later. Monterey officials claimed that said Parenti died of a drug overdose, but his family's independent autopsy showed the death was caused by "viral influenza syndrome complicated by pneumonia," according to the complaint. At least three inmates have died in the jail in 2014, the family claims. Conditions there have sparked concern among prison reformers. A 2013 class action filed by Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld, a San Francisco firm that helped spur California's recent prison overhaul, accuses the facility of dangerous overcrowding and substandard conditions, including poor medical and mental health care. The ACLU of Northern California and Monterey County's Public Defender have joined that battle. The Plaintiffs seek punitive damages for wrongful death, constitutional violations, including failure to provide medical care and due process violations, and two counts of negligence. Parenti's family is represented by: Dan Stormer, Esq. HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 381-9261 Toll Free: (866) 457-2590 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079 MTI GROUPS: Recalls MD Brand Products Due to Undeclared Sulphites ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: MTI Groups Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9291 Affected products: -- Chilli Garlic Sauce; -- Chilli Garlic Sauce; -- Extra Hot Chilli Sauce; -- Lunumiris; -- Seeni Sambol; -- Passion Fruit Cordial; and -- Nelli Cordial NATIONAL ACCOUNT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Szczesniak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Account Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-10346 (N.D. Ill., December 23, 2014) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq. WOOD FINKO & THOMPSON P.C. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 Facsimile: (312) 265-3227 E-mail: mwood@woodfinkothompson.com bthompson@woodfinkothompson.com NATIONAL COLLEGE: Removes "Spangler" Suit to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Spangler, et al. v. National College of Technical Instruction, et al., Case No. 37-2014- 00038832-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03005- H-RBB to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' Emergency Medical Technician educational program violates consumer and other laws. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants operate a private, post- secondary paramedic school in California called NCTI, and that, to entice enrollees to pay over $10,000 in tuition and fees, the Defendants make a number of "false and misleading" representations about the quality of the school, its faculty, its completion time, its clinical training, as well as the potential for post-education job placement. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 Facsimile: (619) 400-5832 E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com lindner@stuevesiegel.com The Defendants are represented by: James M. Peterson, Esq. Jason Conroy Ross, Esq. HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK, LLP 401 West "A" Street, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-1551 Facsimile: (619) 696-1410 E-mail: peterson@higgslaw.com rossj@higgslaw.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Dismissed Players' Medical Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge on December 17 dismissed a class action accusing the NFL of giving football players dangerous painkillers to mask their injuries, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service. U.S. District Judge William Alsup found the lawsuit brought by more than 500 former players must be settled under the collective bargaining agreements between the NFL and the players' union, as the crux of the claim is that players' teams mistreated them, and that the league did nothing to stop it. The lead plaintiff was Richard Dent, a former Chicago Bear. "One problem is this: no decision in any state (including California) has ever held that a professional sports league owed such a duty to intervene and stop mistreatment by the league's independent clubs," Alsup wrote. Alsup ruled that while the agreement's medical care provisions may not be perfect, and its protections may not specifically discuss prescribing drugs and painkillers, "this is not a situation in which the NFL has stood by and done nothing." "The main point of this order is that the league has addressed these serious concerns in a serious way -- by imposing duties on the clubs via collective bargaining and placing a long line of health-and-safety duties on the team owners themselves," Alsup wrote in his 22-page ruling. "These benefits may not have been perfect but they have been uniform across all clubs and not left to the vagaries of state common law. They are backed up by the enforcement power of the union itself and the players' right to enforce these benefits." He continued: "Given the regime in place after decades of collective bargaining over the scope of these duties, it would be impossible to fashion and to apply new and supplemental state common law duties on the league without taking into account the adequacy and scope of the CBA duties already set in place." At a hearing in October that signaled Alsup's decision, he said: "The union is supposed to be looking out for the plaintiffs. The labor union is the one that is supposed to be doing this." Alsup ordered that the players' union weigh in on whether the retired players could still arbitrate their grievances. The union complied with that order, and Alsup, who found that the players' retiree status should not bar them from arbitration, quoted the union's letter in his ruling. "On this issue, the union's letter has explained that 'the current CBA and former CBAs have included various provisions negotiated on behalf of current and future players that continue to benefit those players after they retire from the NFL,' such as provisions on retirement plans or termination pay," Alsup wrote. "In fact, former players in other cases have been able to arbitrate their grievances against the NFL or individual clubs, notwithstanding their prior retirement from the league." Though Alsup found the issue should not be decided in federal court, he said: "This order does not minimize the underlying societal issue. In such a rough-and-tumble sport as professional football, player injuries loom as a serious and inevitable evil. Proper care of these injuries is likewise a paramount need." The case is Richard Dent, et al. v. National Football League, Case No. 3:14-cv-02324-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Hofstatter, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07460-DLI- LB (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 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 NEW YORK, NY: US Government to Intervene in Suit By Rikers Teens ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that four months after condemning the "Lord of the Flies" treatment of Rikers teens, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara praised Mayor Bill de Blasio for stopping the solitary confinement of juveniles -- and also sued him to make sure this and other reforms stick. Bharara formally announced that his office would intervene in a lawsuit filed three years ago by former Rikers Mark Nunez, whose case snowballed into a class action on behalf of tens of thousands of others in 2012. A federal probe into the abuse of Rikers teens in pretrial confinement came to light on Aug. 4, 2014, as the U.S. Attorney's office sent de Blasio a 64-page letter laying out grisly conditions inside the Robert N. Davoren Center, a juvenile lockup. This summer's announcement revealed that, on a "typical day," between 15 and 25 percent that jail's population languished in solitary confinement six-by-eight foot cells of the Central Punitive Segregation Unit, where they spend 23 hours a day in solitary confinement. De Blasio took action on this issue on December 17 evening, stating that Rikers would stop punitive isolation for teenage inmates. Although Bharara praised the mayor for taking this step, he added that this change does not settle the matter. Only a "court-approved settlement agreement" can lead to "permanent, enforceable and verifiable" reform, he said. Bharara emphasized that guards beat inmates with "alarming frequency" in areas of the prison outside video surveillance, and a "powerful code of silence" has kept the prison a "dehumanizing environment." In 2003, an average of 682 teenagers in these jails bore the brunt of 565 "reported staff use of force incidents" that led to 1,057 injuries, his Aug. 4 letter stated. "From June 2012 through early July 2013, adolescents sustained a total of 239 head injuries, and were twice as likely to sustain such injuries as was the adult population," it continued. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called federal intervention in the Nunez class action "an important step to ensure the safety and constitutional rights of young people incarcerated at Rikers Island." "We've seen alarming evidence of unnecessary and excessive use of force against juveniles, as well as a systemic failure to protect them from violence and deeply troubling -- and potentially scarring -- use of solitary confinement," Holder said. "This action allows the Justice Department to seek necessary reforms to remedy these unlawful conditions, to ensure fair treatment, and to provide all incarcerated young people with the protections, and opportunities to build better futures, that they deserve." The four months of negotiation between the U.S. Attorney's office and New York City has been rocky, at times. In September, The New York Times reported that de Blasio's new Department of Corrections Commissioner Joseph Ponte promoted ex- Rikers warden William Clemons and his then-deputy Turhan Gumesdere, who were found in an internal document to have "abdicated all responsibility" in reporting statistics of fights involving teens at the prison. On December 18, Bharara said that he did not want to "overdramatize" his relationship with the department he just sued. "Just because they're on the other side of the 'v.' doesn't mean they have to be scorched-earth adversaries," he said. The city has consented to the federal intervention in the Nunez case, but that does not mean the parties are on the same page, a 4-page motion to intervene indicates. "Over the past four and a half months, the United States and the city of New York have discussed these matters, including most recently together with the plaintiffs in the Nunez action, but have been unable to reach agreement as to lasting, verifiable, and enforceable reforms to remedy the unconstitutional conditions set forth in the United States' findings letter," the motion states. Without explicitly stating his office's goal, Bharara intimated that "outside, independent oversight" would be necessary. De Blasio's office and the attorney for Nunez did not immediately respond to a request for comment. NEWEGG.COM AMERICAS: Accused of Inflating Value of Discounts ------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that online retailer Newegg inflates the value of its discounts by listing products at their peak value and displaying prices that are a "work of fiction," according to a class action lawsuit. M. George Hansen of San Diego sued Nreegg.com Americas in Superior Court on Dec. 12, alleging consumer law violations and unfair and fraudulent business practices. Newegg is best known for selling laptops, computer parts and other electronics. Hansen claims Newegg's Web site includes deceptive price lists. "(T)hese advertised 'discounts' are completely illusory or grossly overstated," the lawsuit states. Hansen claims Newegg "cherry-picks" prices, and that its prices are no better than its competitors'. He claims that consumers may end up receiving no discount at all, or paying a higher price than if they shopped at a traditional retail store. The "'list' price is the highest price the product has ever been listed for, regardless of when that price was advertised, or is a simply a work of fiction. Simply stated, defendant cherry-picks the highest price it can find or the item and uses it to create a significant price discrepancy and the impression of considerable savings for its customers," the complaint states. Hansen seeks restitution, refunds, costs and an injunction. Newegg did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINK, LLP 501 W Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com NHA TRANG: Recalls Beef Balls Due to Listeria Monocytogenes ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 25, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated 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 CFIA reference number: 9476 The food recall warning issued on Nov. 13, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Nha Trang Deli Inc. is recalling Beef Balls from the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product. 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 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. NRL FEDERAL: Removes "Chambers" Suit to Maryland District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Chambers v. NRL Federal Credit Union, Case No. CAL14-29258, was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-03999-DKC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen Hyland, Esq. WILLIAMS & SANTONI, LLP 401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 938-8666 Facsimile: (410) 938-8668 E-mail: kat@williams-santonilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristin Anne Martin Zech, Esq. BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, PC 1921 Gallows Road, Suite 750 Tysons Corner, VA 22182 Telephone: (703) 883-0880 Facsimile: (170) 993-0899 E-mail: kzech@brigliahundley.com OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Fla. Court Denies Bid to Junk "Shamblin" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Shamblin initiated filed a putative class action against Defendant Obama for America on September 19, 2013, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which makes it illegal to call any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service using an automatic-telephone-dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice. Defendant New Partner Consulting, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied New Partner's motion, after finding that New Partners' Second Offer of Judgment failed to provide "maximum allowable relief" to Shamblin and therefore did not moot Shamblin's claim and deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. The case is LORI SHAMBLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OBAMA FOR AMERICA, DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, and NEW PARTNERS CONSULTING, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 8:13-CV-2428-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla.). A full- text copy of Judge Covington's Order dated Nov. 26, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/enjw6jfrom Leagle.com. Lori Shamblin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Quiat, Andrew L. Quiat, P.C., Jack D. McInnes, Esq. -- mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - - at Paul McInnes LLP, Jeffrey M. Paskert, Esq. -- jpaskert@mpdlegal.com -- at Mills Paskert Divers, PA, Joseph J. Mellon, The Mellon Law Firm, Mary F. Mellon, The Mellon Law Firm & Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. -- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes LLP. Obama for America, Defendant, represented by Debra R. Bernard, Esq. -- DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Elisabeth C. Frost, Esq. -- EFrost@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Graham M Wilson, Esq. -- GWilson@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero, PL, Marc Erik Elias, Esq. -- MElias@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP & Rachel E. Fugate, Thomas & LoCicero, PL. DNC Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elisabeth C. Frost, Perkins Coie, LLP, Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero, PL & Marc Erik Elias, Perkins Coie, LLP. New Partners Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles James McHale, Jr., Esq. -- cmchale@gsgfirm.com -- Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC, Dale Thomas Golden, Esq. -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- at Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC & Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero, PL. Peter Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli, Peter J. Grilli, PA. PHILLIPS & COHENS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Chaim Eluzer Stiel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Phillips & Cohens Associates, Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-07480 (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 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 PK TRADING: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Mustard -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 14, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: PK Trading Inc. Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9458 The food recall warning issued on Oct. 24, 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. Industry is recalling Ottogi curry 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. 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 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. PROVECTUS BIOPHARMA: Lead Plaintiff, Atty Named in "Farrah" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville, in a memorandum and order dated Nov. 26, 2014, appointed Fawwaz Hamati as lead plaintiff in the class action styled CARY FARRAH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PROVECTUS BIOPHARMECEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-338-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), and the attorneys of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, as lead counsel, with Attorney Keith Stewart, of Stewart Dupree, PA, serving as liaison counsel. A full-text copy of Magistrate Guyton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/KnyGhefrom Leagle.com. Cary Farrah, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred G Yates, Jr., Esq. -- yateslaw@aol.com -- at Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr., P.C., Christopher Martin Wood, Esq. -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S Myers, Esq. -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J Robbins, Esq. -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David C Walton, Esq. -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, George E Barrett, Esq. -- gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jerry E Martin, Esq. -- jmartin@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy L Miles, Esq. -- tmiles@barrettjohnston.com -- at Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC. James H. Harrison, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Alfred G Yates, Jr., Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr., P.C., Christopher Martin Wood, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David C Walton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, George E Barrett, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jerry E Martin, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy L Miles, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC. Karla Hurtado, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin I Sachs- Michaels, Esq. -- bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com -- at Harwood Feffer LLP, Matthew M Houston, Esq. -- mhouston@hfesq.com -- at Harwood Feffer LLP & Robert I. Harwood, Esq. -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- at Harwood Feffer LLP. Paul Jason Chaney, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Frank J Johnson, Esq. -- frankj@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP, George E Barrett, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC, Michael I Fistel, Jr, Esq., Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC & Timothy L Miles, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC. Jayson Dauphinee, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Paul K Bramlett, Bramlett Law Office & Robert Preston Bramlett, Bramlett Law Office. Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by John S Hicks, Esq. -- jhicks@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & Scott N Sherman, Esq. -- ssherman@bakerdonelson.com -- at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. H. Craig Dees, Defendant, represented by John S Hicks, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & Scott N Sherman, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. Timothy C. Scott, Defendant, represented by John S Hicks, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & Scott N Sherman, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. Peter R. Culpepper, Defendant, represented by John S Hicks, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & Scott N Sherman, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC. Fawwaz Hamati, Movant, represented by Kara M Wolke, Esq. -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Keith D Stewart, Stewart Dupree, PA, Leanne Elise Heine, Esq. -- lheine@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Peter A Binkow, Esq. -- pbinkow@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP & Robert V Prongay, Esq., Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP. Trilokie Khemai, Movant, represented by J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, Megan M Sullivan, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Nadeem Faruqi, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Richard William Gonnello, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. James Vig Sherrill, Movant, represented by Cary L Bauer, Esq. -- clbauer@sidgilreath.com -- at Gilreath & Associates, PC, Matthew B Long, Esq. -- mlong@sidgilreath.com -- at Gilreath & Associates, PC & Sidney W Gilreath, Esq. -- gilknox@sidgilreath.com -- at Gilreath & Associates, PC. Irfan Aras, Movant, represented by George E Barrett, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy L Miles, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC. Theodore Blatt, Movant, represented by George E Barrett, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy L Miles, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC. The Provectus Investment Group, Movant, represented by Paul K Bramlett, Bramlett Law Office. Amir G. Kamel, Movant, represented by Chris T Cain, Scott & Cain. QUALITY FOODS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss ADA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case SARAH HEINZL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY FOODS CORPORATION, d/b/a KUHN'S MARKET, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-1010 (W.D. Pa.) Plaintiff Sarah Heinzl has a mobility disability causing her to be dependent upon a wheelchair for mobility. She has visited defendant Quality Foods Corporation, d/b/a Kuhn's Market property many times. During these visits, she has experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk. Plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against defendant, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 12181 to 12189 (ADA). Specifically, she alleges that the facilities at Kuhn's are not fully accessible to and independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs for mobility, as she does, because of various barriers in the parking lot and along the route to the building entrance. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Amended Complaint. Defendant argues that: 1) Plaintiff lacks standing under the intent to return theory because she has alleged proximity only as to one Kuhn's but no reliable history of patronage or frequency and she has alleged only a cursory statement of intent to return; 2) she lacks standing under a deterrent effect theory because the scant facts put into doubt that she would ever go to the several Kuhn's properties or to "all Defendants' facilities" but for the alleged barriers; 3) she has either sued the wrong party or failed to join an indispensable party, because Kuhn's does not own the parking lot with the alleged violations, but is only one of many tenants at this shopping plaza; 4) the property owner has agreed to make changes that its architect has proposed and thus this case should be stayed as the work will render the case moot; and 5) Kuhn's never received notice of any violations prior to Plaintiff bringing suit and although advance notice is not required under the ADA, it would have led to voluntary compliance and thus Plaintiff's counsel should be denied any request for attorney's fees for bringing this unnecessary action. Judge Mitchell denied defendant's motion to dismiss or stay the Amended Complaint. The defendant was required to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint by December 1, 2014. The issue on attorney's fees is not ripe for decision and the court need not discuss it further. A copy of Magistrate Judge Mitchell's Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated Nov. 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/ajjzlU from Leagle.com. Sarah Heinzl, Plaintiff, represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Quality Foods Corporation, Defendant, represented by: Jon Hogue, Esq. Michelle D. Smith, Esq. MURRAY, HOGUE & LANNIS 3400 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-263-5650 Facsimile: 412-263-5660 Email: jhogue@mhandl.com msmith@mhandl.com RICK'S CABARET: Cannot Appeal $10.8MM Judgment in Suit by Dancers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Rick's Cabaret cannot appeal a November 2014 ruling slapping it with a $10.8 million judgment for labor violations, a federal judge ruled, possibly giving the women who sued the club a leg on claims that go to trial on April 27. Sabrina Hart and Reka Furedi have been fighting the Midtown Manhattan strip club on behalf of nearly 2,300 current and former dancers since 2009. On Nov. 14, their lawsuit hit pay dirt for the first time, as U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer awarded their class millions on three of the charges of the lawsuit. The ruling resolved minimum wage violations, unlawfully retained tips, and improper fees under state law. Rick's sought an interlocutory appeal of some of the legal conclusions that led to that damages amount. The women's lawyer, Anna Prakash, of the Minneapolis-based firm Nichols Kaster PLLP, said in a phone interview that the club still faces up to roughly $20 million more in penalties from a jury for tip-out damages and wages. Rick's could stack up even more liabilities if the jury finds its alleged violations willful, which would send the case back to Engelmayer to calculate further damages, Prakash said. With trial looming, Rick's Cabaret wanted to tilt the law in its favor by seeking to decertify the class challenging its mandatory "tip-out" fees of $60 a day, and a finding that it could use this amount to offset its liabilities from the lawsuit. In a 21-page opinion on December 17, Engelmayer rejected these bids and declined to grant an interlocutory appeal. Prakash celebrated her clients' ongoing "winning streak" in a statement. "The court's decision is an important victory for the plaintiffs in this case, as well as for all victims of unlawful practices who might not be willing to pursue claims individually or might believe they do not have enough proof," Prakash said. "The decision affirms that the class action mechanism is alive and well, that those who have been hurt by unlawful actions can pursue damages as a group, and that employees should not be punished as a result of their employer's failure to keep records but, rather, should be allowed to prove their damages based on their recollections and common proof." Rick's lawyers did not respond to a request for comment by press time. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anna Prakash, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Toll-Free: (877) 448-0492 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com The case is Sabrina Hart and Reka Furedi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the New York Rule 23 Class v. Rick's Cabaret International, Inc., RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc., and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv- 03043-PAE-RLE, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids In November, Judge Engelmayer granted, in part, plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment (or partial summary judgment) to the extent of $10,866,035 in damages. Judge Engelmayer resolved cross-motions filed by the parties in the case, SABRINA HART and REKA FUREDI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the New York Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs, v. RICK'S CABARET INTERNATIONAL, INC., RCI ENTERTAINMENT (NEW YORK), INC., and PEREGIRNE ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 09 CIV 3043 (S.D.N.Y.) Plaintiffs are exotic dancers of Rick's Cabaret New York, who have made claims against the latter for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA ("Claim One"); (2) failure to pay minimum wages under the New York Labor Law or NYLL ("Claim Two"); (3) unlawful requesting and receiving portions of wages under NYLL Section 198-b ("Claim Three"); (4) unlawful retention of gratuities under NYLL Section 196-d ("Claim Four"); and (5) unlawful deductions from wages under NYLL Section 193(3)(a) ("Claim Five"). On September 10, 2013, the Court held that plaintiffs were employees of Rick's NY, that they were therefore entitled to be paid a minimum wage under the FLSA and the NYLL, and that the Club's duty under the FLSA to pay such a wage was not discharged by the payment to the dancers, by customers, of "performance fees" for dances. On November 18, 2013, the Court: (1) denied defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's holding that, even after February 28, 2010, plaintiffs were employees of Rick's NY; (2) denied defendants' motion to set the class period end-date as February 28, 2010, or alternatively as December 20, 2010; the Court instead set the class period end-date as October 31, 2012; and (3) granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Claim Five, holding that the Club's fines, fees, and tip-out requirements violated NYLL Section 193. These decisions established that Peregrine is liable to plaintiffs on Claims One, Two, and Five. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment asking the court to resolve: (1) Whether performance fees paid by customers to the dancers offset wages under the NYLL, and therefore reduce damages in claim two. (2) Whether Peregrine is liable on Claim Four for retaining gratuities in violation of NYLL section 196-d, specifically, the $2 that defendants systematically retained, without disclosure to customers, of each $24 "Dance Dollar" purchased by customers by means of a credit card. (3) Defendants' move to strike the expert reports and testimony on plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. David Crawford. (4) Defendants' move to decertify the Rule 23(b)(3) class, which was initially certified by Judge Koeltl. (5) Plaintiffs' move for partial summary judgment against Peregrine as to damages on claims one (FLSA minimum wage) and two (NYLL minimum wage), damages on claims four (NYLL unlawful retention of gratuities) and on count five (NYLL unlawfull fines and fees). In an opinion and order dated November 14, 2014, available at http://is.gd/TXQHcDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Engelmayer also held that: (1) performance fees do not "offset" wages under the NYLL; and (2) Peregrine is liable on Claim Four for retaining gratuities in violation of NYLL section 196-d. The Court also denies defendants' motions to strike Dr. Crawford as an expert witness and to decertify the class. Sabrina Hart, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the Proposed New York Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, are represented by Eleanor Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Anna Purna Prakash, Nichols Kasters, L.L.P., Eleanor Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Michele Renee Fisher, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Rebekah Lynn Bailey, Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Steven Andrew Smith, Nichols Kaster, PLLP Reka Furedi, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the Proposed New York Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, are also represented by Eleanor Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Anna Purna Prakash, Nichols Kasters, L.L.P., Rebekah Lynn Bailey, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Michele Renee Fisher, Nichols Kaster, PLLP,Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Steven Andrew Smith, Nichols Kaster, PLLP RCI Entertainment (New York) Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard Scott Davis, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard Scott Davis, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP,Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP Rick's Cabaret International Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard Scott Davis, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Racquel Crespi Weintraub, Meister Seelig & Fein LLP Jane Does 1-5, Intervenor, represented by John H. Weston, Weston, Garrou & DeWitt SANDERSON FARMS: 11th Circuit Affirmed Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "two of our former employees filed a complaint on February 16, 2012, alleging violations of the federal and State of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Acts against us and seven of our current and former employees in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The plaintiffs contend in their complaint that the Company conspired to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants at the Moultrie plant to "save Sanderson millions of dollars in labor costs because illegal aliens will work for extremely low wages". The action was brought as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all legally authorized hourly employees who worked at the Moultrie plant in the four years before the filing of the case. The plaintiffs sued for money damages, injunctive relief and revocation of our license to conduct business in the State of Georgia." "On September 13, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting a motion to dismiss the Complaint. After an Amended Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on October 5, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 29, 2012. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered an Order dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on February 8, 2013. On March 7, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit." SONY PICTURES: Hacks Exposed Workers to ID Theft, Class Suits Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- The well-publicized hacks of Sony Pictures Entertainment exposed as many as 47,000 current and former employees to ID theft, according to two class actions in Los Angeles, reports Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiffs Michael Corona and Christina Mathis sued Sony on December 15 in Federal Court. Susan Dukow and Yvonne Yaconelli filed a similar class action on December 16, in Superior Court. Citations in this article come from the federal complaint. The hacks by the so-called "Guardians of Peace" made worldwide news when catty messages from and about Hollywood bigwigs were made public. Speculation has abounded, but no proof, that the hacks were a response to Sony's forthcoming movie "The Interview," a comedy based on an assassination plot against North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Kim, a movie buff, called the movie "an act of war." On December 16, a person or people claiming affiliation with the hacking group posted Internet messages that appear to threaten acts of terrorism when the movie opens. The class actions filed in the third week of December, however, do not involve film stars, terrorism or movie moguls. They come from regular folks who work or worked for Sony. Corona accuses Sony of negligence, medical confidentiality violations, and failing to provide immediate notification of the data breach of personal information. Corona describes the breach as "an epic nightmare, much better suited to a cinematic thriller than to real life." He claims the hackers obtained the Social Security numbers of 47,000 Sony employees and other sensitive information that now could be used by criminals. Corona claims the hackers obtained "current and former employee names, home addresses, telephone numbers, birth dates, Social Security numbers, email addresses, salaries and bonus plans, health care records, performance evaluations, scans of passports and visas, reasons for termination, details of severance packages and other sensitive employment and personal information." He claims there were two "inexcusable problems" that caused the problem: Sony officials didn't correct known weaknesses in the company's security systems that protect its databases and did not "timely protect" database information. He says Sony made a "'business decision to accept the risk.'" It's not the first data breach for Sony, which suffered a "major breach" of its PlayStation video game network in April 2011, and other "repeated data breaches," Corona claims. Corona worked for Sony Pictures Entertainment from 2004 to 2007 and says the hackers obtained his "full name, Social Security number, birthdate, former address, salary history, and reason for resigning." Mathis says she worked for Sony Pictures Consumer Products from 2000 to 2002 and that the hackers obtained her Social Security number and former address. She says Sony still has not contacted her about the data breach aside from sending a "form letter response" to an email inquiry she made about the data breach. The so-called Guardians of Peace seized control of Sony Entertainment's network on Nov. 24. It posted images and information on actors, filmmakers and current and former employees, including images of passports and visas, Social Security numbers, performance evaluations, salaries and bonus plans, reasons for leaving the company and information on severance packages. Plaintiffs seek class certification, actual and statutory damages for negligence and medical privacy violation, restitution, disgorgement and an injunction. The Plaintiffs in the Superior Court seek similar damages, and also allege violation of privacy. The Federal Plaintiffs are represented by: Khesraw Karmand, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com The Plaintiffs in the Superior Court are represented by: Douglas Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, LLP 439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 Facsimile: (310) 975-1095 E-mail: djohnson@jjllplaw.com STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Print Fleece Top ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 21, 2014 Posting date: November 21, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Strangulation Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42575 Affected products: McGordon Boys Print Fleece Top with hood drawstring, style number# KLB-1555 McGordon's Boy's Printed Fleece Top with zip and hood, style KLB- 1555. The drawstring is found around the hood of the garment. Health Canada's evaluation program has determined that drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in strangulation, or in the case of a vehicle, the child being dragged. Neither Stocklots Distribution nor Health Canada has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Approximately 360 Boy's fleece hooded sweatshirt with hood drawstring were sold. The recalled products were manufactured in Philippines and sold from June 23, 2014 to August 25, 2014. Companies: Distributor Stocklots Distribution/ 4283147 Canada Inc. Montreal Quebec Canada Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hood to eliminate the hazard. SURREY SUPER MARKET: Recalls Maggi Healthy Soups - Mixed Veggies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 21, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Surrey Super Market Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9361 Affected products: 44 g. Maggi Healthy Soups - Mixed Vegetable SYNGENTA CORP: "Trans Coastal" Suit Included in MIR162 Corn MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Trans Coastal Supply Company Inc. v. Syngenta AG, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02221, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02637-JWL-JPO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md- 02591-JWL-JPO. The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait, known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. The Plaintiffs are corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn. SYNGENTA CORP: "Volnek" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Volnek Farms, Inc. v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00305, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02641-JWL- JPO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md- 02591-JWL-JPO. The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait, known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. The Plaintiffs are corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul D. Lundberg, Esq. LUNDBERG LAW FIRM, P.L.C. 600 Fourth St., Suite 906 Sioux City, IA 51101 Telephone: (712) 234-3030 Facsimile: (712) 234-3034 E-mail: paul@lundberglawfirm.com - and - Thomas V. Bender, Esq. J. Brett Milbourn, Esq. WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C. 2500 City Center Square 1100 Main Street P.O. Box 26188 Kansas City, MO 64196 Telephone: (816) 421-6620 Facsimile: (816) 421-4747 E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com bmilbourn@wbsvlaw.com - and - Charles T. Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON & PRAHL, LLP 25043 Little Water Ln. P.O. Box 767 Custer, SD 57730 Telephone: (605) 673-5223 E-mail: tpatterson@patterprahl.com - and - Richard S. Lewis, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Mindy B. Pava, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 1700 K St. N.W. Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com mpava@hausfeldllp.com The Defendants are represented by: John P. Passarelli, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP The Omaha Building 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-2186 Telephone: (402) 346-6000 Facsimile: (402) 346-1148 E-mail: john.passarelli@kutakrock.com - and - James M. Sulentic, Esq. KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-2186 Telephone: (402) 346-6000 Facsimile: (402) 346-1148 E-mail: James.Sulentic@KutakRock.com SYSTEMAX INC: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., Richard Leeds, Chairman and CEO (and in his individual capacity) and Lawrence P. Reinhold, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer (and in his individual capacity), Case No. 2:14-cv-07509 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2014) challenges the Defendants' alleged acts of discrimination and retaliation against the Plaintiff in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and New York State Labor Law. Systemax, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Port Washington, New York. Systemax is a business that retails and private labels certain consumer electronics and industrial products. Richard Leeds, a resident of Florida, is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Systemax. Lawrence Reinhold, a resident of Jericho, New York, is the Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of Systemax. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. Sumantra Tito Sinha, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com tsinha@vkvlawyers.com SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: Foreign Consultant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- High-tech staffing firm Systems Integration Solutions -- which supplies foreign consultants to high-profile clients like Apple -- stiffs its workers for wages and breaks, a class action filed December 17 in Alameda County court claims, reports William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service. Chao Xu represents a class of foreign consultants and is suing SIS and Apple for a litany of labor code violations, including unpaid overtime, minimum wage, failure to pay wages owed, meal and rest breaks and inaccurate wage statements, as well as unfair business practices and competition. Xu says he worked for SIS for about seven months in 2013. The company assigned him to work for Apple as a software engineer and consultant, for $100 per hour. According to the complaint, Xu and other foreign workers like him are employed by SIS and furnished to tech companies -- like Apple -- on a temporary basis. But while SIS charges Apple for its staffing services and then pays the workers, the company only pays for hours approved by their clients, Xu says in the complaint. The workers regularly worked more than the number of approved hours -- often more than eight hours a day and 40 hours a week -- but received nothing beyond what Apple approved in advance, Xu's complaint states. "SIS monitors closely the performance of plaintiff and other class members and knows, or should know, how many hours plaintiff and other class members are regularly working during the class period," the complaint states. Similarly, "Apple knows, or should know, how many hours plaintiff and other subclass members are regularly working during the class period because subclass members perform work for Apple in Apple's offices, log on to Apple's computer systems in order to perform work, and receive work instructions and directions from Apple personnel," Xu says in the complaint. Apple and SIS also regularly scheduled the consultants to work without the required meal and rest breaks -- even in cases where the engineers worked over 10 hours a day, according to the complaint. And SIS issued wage statements that did not contain the total number of hours the consultants worked, gross and net wages earned or accurate hourly rates of pay, Xu says. In addition to class certification, Xu seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, civil penalties and restitution from SIS and Apple. He also wants the court to permanently bar the companies from violating labor code and unfair competition laws. The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Chao, Esq. CHAO LEGAL One Embarcadero Center, Suite 3860 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 738-5352 Facsimile: (415) 233-4859 E-mail: kathy@chaolegal.com - and - Kyann Kalin, Esq. STUTHEIT KALIN LLC 308 SW First Avenue, Suite 325 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (971) 285-7578 Facsimile: (503) 715-5670 E-mail: kyann@stutheitkalin.com - and - Donald W. Heyrich, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Steward Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 826-5357 Facsimile: (206) 260-3055 E-mail: dheyrich@hkm.com The case is Chao Xu, on behalf of himself, all others similarly- situated, the general public, and the people of the State of California v. Systems Integration Solutions, Inc., a California Corporation; Apple Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. RG14751629, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. TEREX: Recalls AL5 LIGHT Tower Model ------------------------------------ Starting date: November 25, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Equipment Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 50 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014531 TC ID number: 2014531 Manufacturer recall number: SN 140016 On certain light towers, the lower section of the fuel tank was built with insufficient structural support. This could result in deformation of the fuel tank when filled with fuel, which could cause the fuel tank to make contact with the trailer axle. An impact between the fuel tank and trailer axle could result in a hole, and fuel could leak. Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers and/or owners will inspect and add structural support for the lower section of the fuel tank and if necessary, replace the fuel tank. Affected products: 2014 Terex AL5 Light Tower TEXAS: Appeals Court Affirms Order Denying Cert. of "Riemer" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, in Amarillo, by a 2011 opinion, expressed disagreement with a trial court's conclusion that the record in the proposed class action relating to a dispute with the class plaintiffs and the State of Texas over the boundary between the State-owned riverbed of the Canadian River and the plaintiffs' riparian surface and mineral interests along a 12-mile stretch of the river in Hutchison County, showed some proposed class representatives lacked standing to assert a takings claim, but agreed with the trial court's finding that the proposed representatives could not adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court of Appeals, in the 2011 opinion, affirmed the trial court's order. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the adequacy-of-representation determination and remanded the case for review of the other contested requirements for class certification. In an opinion dated Nov. 26, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order denying certification after finding that the trial court abused its discretion in its finding the requirements of typicality under rule 42(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure were not met, but properly found that the proposed class met the requirements of neither rule 42(b)(1)(A) nor rule 42(b)(3), and thus affirmed the trial court's order denying certification of the proposed class. The case is JIMMY GLEN RIEMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HUGO A. RIEMER, JR., DECEASED, RICHARD COON, JR., JUNE MEETZ COON TRUST, JOHNSON BORGER RANCH PARTNERHSIP, AND MONTFORD T. JOHNSON, III ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS AND JERRY PATTERSON, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellees, NO. 07-10-00037-CV (Tex. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/xOvOAA from Leagle.com. THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Vinacafe and Vinacafe BH Wake-Up Coffee --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Thai Indochine Trading Inc. Distribution: New Brunswick, Ontario, Possibly National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9451 Thai Indochine Trading Inc. is recalling Vinacafe and Vinacafe BH Wake-Up brands coffee products from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products. 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 milk, 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. TRACY'S TREASURES: Court Clarifies Insurer's Duties in TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Mary Anne Mason of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, reversed a district court ruling and remanded the dispute involving Central Mutual Insurance Company and Tracy's Treasures, Inc. The appellate case is entitled CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. TRACY'S TREASURES, INC., and PAUL IDLAS, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, No 1-12-3339 (Ill. App. Ct.). Tracy's Treasures engaged in the business of selling dating and social relationship services, which it publicized, at least in part, by facsimile advertisements. Tracy's is insured under a number of primary and excess commercial liability policies issued by Central Mutual Insurance Company. Central insured Tracy's under a series of business owner primary liability insurance policies, cumulatively effective from May 5, 1997, until May 5, 2005, and a series of commercial excess liability insurance policies, cumulatively effective from January 29, 2002, until January 29, 2005. The face value of all of Central's policies of insurance in effect during the relevant time period is $14 million. Paul Idlas filed a three-count class action complaint against Tracy's for unsolicited fax advertisements that allegedly violated the TCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Illinois common law. Idlas alleged that between March 5, 2003 and March 5, 2007, Tracy's sent unsolicited facsimile messages advertising Tracy's dating services without prior express permission from the recipients. Tracy's tendered Idlas' claims to Central pursuant to the insurance contracts. Central disclaimed coverage for the claims asserted in Idlas on several grounds, including that (i) in 2005 the parties had agreed to a "buyout" of the coverage for personal and advertising injury, (ii) no "occurrence" giving rise to "property damage" was alleged in Idlas, (iii) any injury caused by the faxes sent by Tracy's was expected or intended by Tracy's, and (iv) Tracy's knew that its conduct in sending the faxes was prohibited. Despite Central's denial of coverage, it advised Tracy's that it will assign a lawyer to provide Tracy's a courtesy defense, one of which is Gregory Ellis who in the later part was retained by Tracy's in light of Central's position that Idlas claims were not covered under its polices. On January 25, 2008, six weeks after he wrote to Central, Ellis, on behalf of Tracy's, and counsel for Idlas filed with the Lake County circuit court a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement providing for entry of a $14 million judgment against Tracy's, which was enforceable only against Central's policies. No notice of the motion was provided to Central. On February 5, 2008, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. Central moved for summary judgment arguing that the $14 million settlement reached between Idlas and Tracy's was collusive and unreasonable as a matter of law under the standards articulated by the supreme court in Guillen v. Potomac Insurance Co. of Illinois, 203 Ill.2d 141 (2003). The trial court denied this motion, finding that these claims raised several disputed issues of fact. Central argues this ruling was erroneous. Central also sought summary judgment on the basis that the insurance contracts no longer contained any provision for coverage for either "advertising injury" or "personal and advertising injury." The trial court, denied Central's motion, finding that that since Idlas's rights vested on July 22, 2003, when Idlas received his fax, "Tracy's and Central could not agree to divest Idlas in a secret agreement concluded in November of 2005." Central likewise challenges this ruling. However the trial court determined, in accordance with the decision in Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay, 2012 IL App (4th) 110527, that amounts awarded to claimants under the TCPA are punitive in nature and therefore not insurable. Tracy's and Idlas, the plaintiff in the underlying class action, appeal from an order of the trial court granting Central's motion for summary judgment. Central cross-appealed the denial of its motions for summary judgment. After the filing of the appeal, the state Supreme Court reversed Lay and held that damages awarded for TCPA claims are liquidated rather than punitive and, thus, are not uninsurable as a matter of public policy, Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay, 2013 IL 114617. Accordingly, Justice Mason held that due to an intervening change in the law that formed the basis of the trial court's ruling in favor of plaintiff and cross-appellant, Central, the court must reverse. The court affirmed the other rulings appealed by Central and remanded for further proceedings. A copy of Justice Mason's opinion dated November 5, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/1RTO77from Leagle.com. The panel consists of Presiding Justice Aurelia Pucinski and Justices Mary Anne Mason and P. Scott Neville. TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mayacamas Hollandaise Sauce Mix ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 18, 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: Tree of Life Canada Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9468 Affected products: Mayacamas Hollandaise Sauce Mix with all codes where milk is not declared on the label TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Ex-Student Wants $1.3MM in Counsel Fees & Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a dissatisfied former student of Donald Trump's for-profit business school says she deserves more than $1.3 million in attorney's fees and court costs after four years of litigation and being forced to defend against a "million-dollar counterclaim." Tarla Makaeff lodged a class action alleging deceptive business practices against the for-profit Trump University in 2010. She claimed that school -- now called The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative -- took her for nearly $60,000 and failed to follow up on promises it made during expensive seminars that Makaeff said were little more than "infomercials." Trump University shot back with a counterclaim for defamation based on Makaeff's online postings and other comments, which Makaeff said were intended to "alert other consumers of my opinions and experience with Trump University" and to "inform other consumers of my opinion that Trump University did not deliver what it promised." Makaeff moved to strike the counterclaim under California's anti- SLAPP law, but U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez in San Diego denied the motion. A three-judge federal appeals panel reversed Gonzalez in 2013, and the full court declined to revisit the decision months later. After the district court granted the Makaeff's motion to strike the counterclaim this past June, Makaeff and her legal team requested attorney's fees and costs totalling just over $1.3 million. Makaeff's lawyers claimed to have spent 2,226 hours on the four-year case, a figure Trump's lawyers vehemently opposed in their answer. "Makaeff has filed a two-inch thick stack of papers that spends considerable time demonizing Trump University, arguing that wealthy parties to litigation are not entitled to a defense, and extolling the expertise of various attorneys for Makaeff to justify premium hourly rates notwithstanding the rate surveys included in their pleadings do not support the high rate," Trump's attorneys told the court. Trump's lawyers suggested awarding no more than $147,675 in fees and to "deny all costs." Late in November, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said that the 2,226 hours Makaeff had claimed to have spent on the anti-SLAPP litigation "seems to be very high." He also noted that that Makaeff's "vague statements" about the amount of time spent on the case needed more detail, and called for supplemental briefing on the issue. Makaeff defended the previous request while providing a more detailed breakdown of how the case was litigated in briefs filed in the third week of December. "Trump did not hesitate to pull the trigger on his million-dollar counterclaim against student-victim Tarla Makaeff, but now that it has backfired, Trump complains Makaeff's counsel responded with too much fire power," attorney Rachel Jensen, of the firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, wrote. "Given the near certainty that a loss would have bankrupted Makaeff, and the importance to consumers nationwide (in this case and others) that class representatives are not bullied into dropping class actions, class counsel had to give it their all," Jensen added. [Parentheses in original.] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason A. Forge, Esq. Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: jforge@rgrdlaw.com rjensen@rgrdlaw.com - and - Daniel J. Pfefferbaum ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com - and - Maureen E. Mueller, Esq. 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: mmueller@rgrdlaw.com - and - Amber L. Eck, Esq. Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 625 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878 E-mail: ambere@zhlaw.com helenz@zhlaw.com alreenh@zhlaw.com aarono@zhlaw.com The case is Tarla Makaeff, et al. v. Trump University, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-0940-GPC (WVG), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Crisp Rolls and Crackers ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Uncle T Food Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail UNIVERSAL IMPEX: Recalls Curry Powder ------------------------------------- Starting date: November 20, 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: Universal Impex Corp. Distribution: Alberta, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9478 The food recall warning issued on Oct. 31, 2014 has been updated to include additional products. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Universal Impex Corp. is recalling Cool Runnings brand Curry Powder and Jamaican Style Curry Powder from the marketplace because they may contain peanut and almond which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut or almond should not consume the recalled products. 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 peanut or almond do not consume the recalled products 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 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 products from the marketplace. VERKA FOOD: Recalls Peanut Brittle Due to Undeclared Sesame Seeds ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Sesame Seeds Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Verka Food International Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9466 VIRGINIA: FCCW Inmates Obtain Partial Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------ Cynthia Scott and several other prisoners residing at Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, a facility of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections, filed an action alleging that defendants Harold W. Clarke, et al., violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The Plaintiffs assert that FCCW fails to provide adequate medical care and that the Defendants are deliberately indifferent to this failure. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a memorandum opinion dated Nov. 25, 2014, Judge Norman K. Moon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottsville Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion seeking partial summary judgment on two key elements of their complaint -- that is, that the Defendants bear a non-delegable "constitutional duty to provide adequate medical treatment to" Plaintiffs, and that the specific health problems and conditions of which the named Plaintiffs complain constitute "serious medical needs," "deliberate indifference to" which is "proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." Judge Moon stated that granting the Plaintiffs' motion necessarily means that the Defendants' motion must, to some extent, be denied, given that the Defendants contend, among other things, that they have contractually delegated their duty to provide adequate medical care. Moreover, Judge Moon added that his review of the record led him to conclude that the Defendants' motion must be denied in its entirety. The case is CYNTHIA B. SCOTT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, ET AL., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00036 (W.D. Va.). A full-text copy of Judge Moon's Decision is available at http://is.gd/kpNZYcfrom Leagle.com. Cynthia B. Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth Walters, Legal Aid Justice Center, Erin Margaret Trodden, Legal Aid Justice Center, Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Legal Aid Justice Center, Kimberly Anne Rolla, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Catherine Bauer, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Frances Charlton, Legal Aid Justice Center, Abigail Turner, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A. Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, Brenda Erin Castaneda, Legal Aid Justice Center, Deborah Maxine Golden, Washington Lawyers Committee & Theodore Augustus Howard, Wiley Rein LLP. Bobinette D. Fearce, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth Walters, Legal Aid Justice Center, Erin Margaret Trodden, Legal Aid Justice Center, Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Legal Aid Justice Center, Kimberly Anne Rolla, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Catherine Bauer, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Frances Charlton, Legal Aid Justice Center, Abigail Turner, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A. Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, Brenda Erin Castaneda, Legal Aid Justice Center, Deborah Maxine Golden, Washington Lawyers Committee & Theodore Augustus Howard, Wiley Rein LLP. Marguerite Richardson, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth Walters, Legal Aid Justice Center, Erin Margaret Trodden, Legal Aid Justice Center, Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Legal Aid Justice Center, Kimberly Anne Rolla, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Catherine Bauer, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Frances Charlton, Legal Aid Justice Center, Abigail Turner, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A. Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, Brenda Erin Castaneda, Legal Aid Justice Center, Deborah Maxine Golden, Washington Lawyers Committee & Theodore Augustus Howard, Wiley Rein LLP. Rebecca L. Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth Walters, Legal Aid Justice Center, Erin Margaret Trodden, Legal Aid Justice Center, Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Legal Aid Justice Center, Kimberly Anne Rolla, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Catherine Bauer, Legal Aid Justice Center, Mary Frances Charlton, Legal Aid Justice Center, Abigail Turner, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A. Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, Brenda Erin Castaneda, Legal Aid Justice Center, Deborah Maxine Golden, Washington Lawyers Committee & Theodore Augustus Howard, Wiley Rein LLP. Harold W. Clarke, Defendant, represented by John Michael Parsons, Office of the Attorney General, James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General & Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office of the Attorney General. A. David Robinson, Defendant, represented by John Michael Parsons, Office of the Attorney General, James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General & Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office of the Attorney General. Frederick Schilling, Defendant, represented by John Michael Parsons, Office of the Attorney General, James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General & Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office of the Attorney General. Phyllis A. Baskerville, Defendant, represented by John Michael Parsons, Office of the Attorney General, James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General & Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Office of the Attorney General. WALTER INVESTMENT: Fla. Court Tosses Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has dismissed putative shareholder class action complaint without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. On July 24, 2013, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Cummings, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., 8:13-cv-01916-JDW-TBM. The complaint asserted federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional claims were asserted against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged that between May 9, 2012 and June 6, 2013 the Company and the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions about the integrity of the Company's financial reporting, including the reporting of expenses associated with certain financing transactions, and the liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS. The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of the individuals or entities which purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities from May 9, 2012 through June 6, 2013. On October 2, 2013, the plaintiff in the action filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. On October 3, 2013, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. WALTER INVESTMENT: Facing Shareholder Class Action in S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2014, that the Company is facing a putative shareholder class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880 (S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The amended complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional claims are asserted against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint alleges that between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company's internal controls and financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Green Tree Servicing (including certain of the Company's business practices that are being reviewed by the FTC and the CFPB), the liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS and RMS's internal controls. The complaint seeks class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the disposition of the complaint or that such disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition. WAUPOOSE ESTATE: Recalls Sweet Apple Cider Due to Patulin --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Waupoose Estate Winery Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9433 Affected products: 5 L. Sweet Apple Cider WELLPOINT INC: Sets Up Monopoly Using Illegal Licenses, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, David Wells reports that a federal class action claims Wellpoint used unlawful licenses and agreements to restrict competition in Indiana and inflate insurance premiums. In a complaint filed in the federal court in Indianapolis, lead plaintiffs Ryan Ray and Trent Kelso claim Wellpoint, also known as Anthem Insurance, manipulated the insurance market by divvying up geographical regions with Blue Cross and Blue Shield member health plans, and used contracts that contained "Most Favored Nation" or "MFN" clauses to control health care prices. The clauses are negotiated with individual health care providers to ensure that Wellpoint receives the best prices on services. The class alleges that the providers are forced into accepting these clauses because Wellpoint controls a majority of the market in Indiana, and would rescind business if not agreed upon. "If a health care provider does not agree to the MFN, that provider will not remain in or become a part of WellPoint's network, which is generally an unacceptable result because WellPoint controls the vast majority of subscribers in Indiana. Faced with this prospect, providers capitulate to WellPoint's demands, including MFNs," the complaint states. The lawsuit also accuses Wellpoint of taking part in licensing agreements to ensure other members of Blue Cross and Blue Shield do not compete with each other by doing business in the same areas. "Through the License Agreements, which the independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensees created, control and enforce, each independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensee agrees that neither it nor its subsidiaries will compete under the licensed Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names outside of a designated service Area," the class says. The agreements also allegedly restrict revenue that members like Wellpoint can generate outside of their designated areas, which according to the plaintiff's, gives little incentive to expand outside such areas, and constitute as unlawful horizontal agreements between competitors that would also violate anti- monopoly laws. Blue Cross and Blue Shield is made up of 37 separate and independent insurance companies, and is controlled by members, of which Wellpoint is one of the largest, that can vote on new members or terminate existing ones. Wellpoint is no stranger to lawsuits regarding its practices, as it was sued this past July in Los Angeles County Superior Court for misleading consumers on the size and benefits of its health network, and again in August for changing member's plans without proper notification. The class, which includes all consumers who paid Wellpoint for insurance premiums dating back to 2006, seeks monetary damages under The Sherman Antitrust Act, for inflated insurance prices. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan C. Little, Esq. David Miller, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE, LLP 1433 North Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 721-9214 E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com david@sllawfirm.com The case is Ryan Ray, Trent Kelso, et al. v. Wellpoint, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02026-WTL-TAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. WELLS FARGO: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Counts in "Foley" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated, in part, the judgment entered by the district court and affirmed the dismissal of two counts in a lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. The appellate case is, JONATHAN FOLEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Appellee, Case No. 13-2527 (1st Cir.). Plaintiff-Appellant Jonathan Foley applied for a home mortgage loan from World Savings, FSB, now Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Foley succumbed to his financial hardship and stopped making timely payments in-full, but did make some partial payments. He sought a loan modification from the bank, and in April 2011, Wells Fargo informed him he might qualify for the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), a federal program that allows qualified homeowners to reduce their monthly mortgage payments. Foley asked to participate, and the bank's representatives said they would send him an application. Despite repeated inquiries, follow-ups and calls, Foley never had his loan modified. He filed a complaint against Wells Fargo, alleging breach of contract (Count one), violation of Mass. Gen. Law ch. 244 Sections 35A and 35B (Count two), violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (Count three), and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for the bank's alleged mishandling of Foley's loan modification (Count four). Foley also moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court, where Foley renewed his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. After a hearing on Foley's motion for injunctive relief, the district court temporarily enjoined Wells Fargo from foreclosing on Foley's home, pending an evidentiary hearing on the motion. While the injunction motion was in abeyance, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss Foley's complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), to which Foley filed a written opposition. The case was reassigned to another trial judge, who conducted the evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction. At the close of the hearing, the judge orally denied Foley's motion for injunctive relief, and stated that he was not going to take up the pending motion to dismiss because he deemed it appropriate to consider that on the papers. The court later entered a written order allowing Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss and disposing of all of Foley's claims, without conducting a hearing. Plaintiff made a timely appeal. According to Judge Thompson, the district court did not provide Foley with sufficient notice prior to converting Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment on the two contract-based claims. The dismissal of these claims is not warranted on sufficiency grounds. Counts One and Four will be remanded for further proceedings and the dismissal of Foley's statutory claim arising under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, Sections 35A and 35B is affirmed. A copy of Judge Thompson's order dated November 14, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/GlmoYDfrom Leagle.com. Valeriano Diviacchi -- val@diviacchi.com -- for appellant David M. Bizar -- dbizar@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, on brief, for appellee The First Circuit panel consists of Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson, Juan R. Torruella and Timothy B. Dyk. WHOLE FOODS: "Bilder" Suit Transferred From New Jersey to Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Bilder v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-06146, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin). The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01132 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 E-mail: josefchen@denittislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: James S. Yu, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 218-5524 Facsimile: (212) 218-5526 E-mail: jyu@seyfarth.com XANODYNE PHARMA: "Corber" Case Belongs in Dist. Ct, 9th Cir. Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the order of the District Court and remanded the case MARGALIT CORBER; RENE CARO; STEVE DANTZLER; LINDA SOWARDS; LORI HUISMAN; JOHNNY GEORGE, SR.; TERRY PERRY; WILLIAM RACKLEY; ANGELA YOUNG; PAMELA RODRIGUEZ; STEVEN SYVERSON; OLGA CAICOYA; JANET CARROLL; ROSE CASH; ULAD CELENTANO; VIRGINIA COSTANZO; KIMBERLY FILLIGIM; ARMELDIA SMITH; CARLA WEST; JOANNE BIERZYNSKI, individually and as next of kin to Eleanor Wojcik; SHARLEY MORRIS; WYOMIA TIMMONS; DEAN REINKING; DANIEL THORNE; WENDELEN ASHBY; CARMEN BEDFORD; CLAUDE COMMODORE; JAMES HENSON; NANCY LOCKE; MILDRED SCOTT; BILLIE BURNETT; SHEENA HALL; BRENDA ROBERGE, individually and as next of kin to Ernest Roberge; DEBORAH WOODSUM; RICHARD PASCUITO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. JUDITH ROMO; VINCENT TALDONE; ROBIN TAYLER; MARGARET TAYLOR; RANDY TAYLOR; RAY TEETS; LAWRENCE TELLS; KATHRYN TEMCHACK; CHARLES TERRY; VERONICA TERRY; ROBERTA THORNE; MARGARET TIVIS; LINDA TODD; DELORES TOOHEY; DEBRA TOURVILLE; DENA TSOUALS; ALLEN TURNER; CAROLYN TURNER; WANDA TURNER; STARLET TYRONE; GLORIA UNDERWOOD; HENRY UNDERWOOD; JANICE VANISON; WILLIAM VERHEYEN; CHARLES VILDIBILL; SHARON WALLGREN; PAM WALSH; SHARON WALSH; KEESHA WARRIOR; LATANGA WASHINGTON; DARLENE WATT; JAMES WEISS; WESLEY WELBORNE, III; DEBRA WHEELER; MARSHA WHITT; CAROLYN WHYNO; CECILIA WILCKENS; SANDRA WILEMON; STELLA WILKERSON-CLARK; JOANN WILLIAMS; JOYCE WILLIAMS; ROSE WILLIAMS; SHANTAS WILLIAMS; MARY WILSON; ROSE WILSON; PATSY WINZEY; JIMMIE WISE; RUTH WOLFSON; JUANITA WOODSON; LYNNE WYSOCKY, single individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant., NOS. 13-56306, 13-56310 (9th Cir.) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) held the rights of pain reliever drugs Darvocet and Darvon which contains propoxyphene. Xanodyne acquired the rights to Darvocet and Darvon in 2007. Plaintiffs filed a suit against Teva and Xanodyne alleging injuries related to the ingestion of propoxyphene, an ingredient found in the Darvocet and Darvon pain relief drugs. Plaintiffs asked for coordination under section 404 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, of their lawsuits to avoid potential duplication and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments, and that without coordination, two or more separate courts may render different rulings on liability and other issues. Plaintiffs argued in their petitions and the supporting memoranda that the cases should be coordinated before one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes, to address the same or substantially similar causes of action, issues of law, and issues of material fact. After these petitions for coordination were filed, Teva and Xanodyne removed the cases to federal district court under CAFA's mass action provision. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because Plaintiffs' petitions for coordination were not proposals to try the cases jointly, and it remanded the cases back to state court. Teva and Xanodyne appealed from the district court's orders remanding the cases to state court. Judge Gould reversed the district court's remand orders. He concluded that all of the CAFA requirements for a removable mass action are met under the totality of the circumstances. A copy of Judge Gould's opinion dated November 18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/VsOEJQfrom Leagle.com. Jay Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- Daniel A. Bress -- daniel.bress@kirkland.com -- and Danielle R. Sassoon -- danielle.sassoon@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Ginger Pigott -- pigottg@gtlaw.com -- Amy B. Alderfer -- Karin L. Bohmholdt -- bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com -- Lori G. Cohen -- cohenl@gtlaw.com -- Victoria D. Lockard -- lockardv@gtlaw.com -- Elliot H. Scherker -- scherkere@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for Defendant-Appellant Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. Karin Bohmholdt -- bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg & Traurig LLP; Karen Woodward -- karen.woodward@sedgwicklaw.com -- Hall R. Marston -- hall.marston@sedgwicklaw.com -- and Christopher P. Norton -- christopher.norton@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP; Linda E. Maichl -- lmaichl@ulmer.com -- Michael J. Suffern -- msuffern@ulmer.com -- at Ulmer & Berne LLP, for Defendant- Appellant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Louis M. Bograd -- lou.bograd@cclfirm.com -- Andre M. Mura -- Andre.mura@cclfirm.com -- at Center for Constitutional Litigation; Matthew J. Sill, Sill Law Group LLP; Andrew N. Chang -- achang@ecbappeal.com -- Stuart B. Esner -- sesner@ecbappeal.com -- at Esner, Chang & Boyer; Elise R. Sanguinetti -- elise@sanguinettilaw.com -- at Khorrami Boucher Sumner LLP; James P. Sizemore -- at The Sizemore Law Firm, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Romo, Corber, et al. Jeremy B. Rosen -- jrosen@horvitzlevy.com -- at Horvitz & Levy LLP, for Amici Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and PhRMA Richard Abbott Samp, Washington Legal Foundation, for Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation David M. Arbogast -- David@arbogastlawpc.com -- ARBOGAST LAW, A.P.C., for Amicus Curiae American Association for Justice John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Product Liability Advisory Council YAMAHA: Recalls YZ250FFL and YZ250FFW Models -------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 100 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014522 TC ID number: 2014522 Manufacturer recall number: M14-075 On certain motorcycles, the balancer drive gear could break, causing engine lockup. This could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Dealers will replace the balancer drive gear set with a revised part. Affected products: 2015, 2015 Yamaha ZUFFA LLC: Accused by UFC Fighters of Controlling MMA Market ------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that the Ultimate Fighting Championship pushes out rival promoters to maintain iron-fisted control over the mixed martial arts market, crushing fighters' earnings, three athletes claim in a federal class action. UFC middleweight Chung Le and former UFC fighters Nathan Quarry and Jon Fitch sued Zuffa LLC, the parent company of UFC, under the Sherman Antitrust Act on December 16. The UFC said in a statement that it is "aware of the action filed today but has not been served, nor has it had the opportunity to review the document. The UFC will vigorously defend itself and its business practices." The fighters accuse the UFC of an "overarching anticompetitive scheme" to monopolize the MMA marketplace and restrict athletes' earnings. "By dominating the market for live elite professional MMA fighter bouts, defendant makes the UFC the 'only game in town' for elite professional MMA fighters who want to earn a living in their chosen profession at the highest level of the sport of MMA," the 63-page lawsuit states. UFC fighters are paid about 10 to 17 percent of the revenue generated from UFC bouts, and all fighters have had their pay "artificially reduced" due to the UFC's monopoly, according to the lawsuit. In comparison, athletes who compete in other professional sports, such as football and baseball, generally earn morn than 50 percent of league revenue, the lawsuit states. The UFC also expropriates rights to the fighters' names and likenesses, limiting the athletes' ability to license themselves for commercial products or promotions even after their contracts with the UFC expire, the fighters claim. The UFC's annual revenue from Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2013 was about $483 million, with $256 million generated by live events and another $227 million from merchandising, video game fees and digital media, according to the lawsuit. The fighters claim that "the UFC's worldwide profit margins are among the highest, if not the highest, in professional sports." The UFC controls more than 90 percent of the revenue derived from live elite professional MMA bouts nationwide, and gained its monopoly on the sport by buying up or driving out other viable promoters, according to the lawsuit. The company has the ability to preclude new rivals from entering the market, to raise the would-be rivals' costs, impair their opportunities and control prices, the lawsuit states. The UFC also forces major venues for MMA bouts to supply their services exclusively to the UFC and requires MMA sponsors to work only with the UFC and UFC fighters, the fighters say. "Without access to key sponsors, venues, or major television distribution outlets, would-be rivals cannot put together sufficiently attractive events either to attract elite professional MMA fighters to work with them or to gain the kind of audience that could challenge the UFC's dominance," the complaint states. Fighters who sign with the UFC must enter into restrictive contracts that prevent them from working with other MMA promoters during and after their time with the UFC, according to the lawsuit. Because the UFC retaliates against fighters who work or threaten to work with would-be rival promoters, the fighters "have refused offers to fight for actual or potential rival promoters, even those that offer higher compensation, out of fear that the UFC would retaliate against both the promoter and the fighter," the lawsuit states. Fighters are deterred by the threats because being banned from UFC fights substantially diminishes their ability to earn money in the sport, according to the complaint. Furthermore, the UFC has control over key sponsors and threatens to never work with those sponsors if they contract with a MMA fighter against the UFC's wishes, the fighters say. "As a result, the only remaining promoters of MMA bouts are either fringe competitors -- which, as general matter, do not and cannot successfully compete directly with the UFC -- or entities that have essentially been conscripted by the UFC, through the scheme alleged herein, into acting as the UFC's 'minor leagues,' developing talent for the UFC but not competing directly with it," the fighters say. The fighters claim the UFC has publicly touted its success at squashing the competition. "For example, in November 2008, following the UFC's acquisition of the assets of MMA Promotion companies International Fight League, Elite Xtreme Combat, and Affliction Entertainment, UFC President Dana White uploaded a pre-bout video blog to YouTube in which he held up the following mock tombstone prominently displaying the letters 'RIP' as well as the logos and 'dates of death' of those MMA Promoters -- IFL, Elite XC and Affliction. Each promotion had been put out of business by the UFC's anticompetitive conduct," the lawsuit states. White then took credit for the companies' deaths by saying, "I'm the grim reaper, motherf***ers," according to the complaint. The fighters seek treble damages for antitrust violations, but did not put a figure on the amount. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2015. 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 * * *