/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150114.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 10 Headlines ABE'S FINEST: Recalls 80,050 Lbs. of Hickory Smoked Sliced Bacon AIM DIRECTIONAL: "Chance" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ALPHA RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act AMD IMPORTS: Recalls 35,275 Lbs. of Australian Lamb Products APOLLO EDUCATION: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Case Dismissal APOLLO EDUCATION: Parties to Present Settlement in Teamsters Case APOLLO EDUCATION: Defending Against "Gonzalez" TCPA Action APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Paredes" Suit Over Deceptive Practices APOLLO EDUCATION: "Tandy" Suit Alleges Calif Labor Code Violation APOLLO EDUCATION: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed "Saleh" Action ARRINGTON GROUNDS: Removes "Ettel" Class Suit to M.D. Florida B. ROBERT'S FOODS: Recalls 4,474 Lbs. of Chicken Noodle Soup BAKER TILLY: Faces "Wong" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports BANK OF AMERICA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Swift" Suit Claims BLAZER REAL: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BLUE GENTIAN: Falsely Marketed X-Hose Pro Products, Suit Claims CALIFORNIA BANK: Sued Over Failure to Provide ATMs for Blinds CAMPOS FOODS: Recalls 5,300 Lbs. of Chicken Products CAPITAL ONE: $7.2-Mil. Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay CARMAX INC: Provides Updates on "Fowler" Class Action CARMAX INC: Received $20.9MM From Toyota Class Action Settlement CELADON GROUP: Ordered to Pay $3.8 Million to Overcharged Drivers CK FRANCHISING: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages COLUMBIAN CHEMICALS: "Talkington" Suit Moved to N.D. W. Virginia COOK MEDICAL: Faces Suit in Ind. Over IVC Filter-Related Injuries CREDIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Zori" Action Claims CVS HEALTH: Faces "Baugh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DABECCA NATURAL: Recalls 3,450 Lbs. of Bacon Products DANIEL WEAVER: Recalls 7,092 Lbs. of Halal Beef Products DOLLAR GENERAL: Removes "Pleasant" Class Suit to C.D. California EMPIRE EAST: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Shuts Down Ad Buyers' Class Action FALLSBURG CENTRAL: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation FAMILY DOLLAR: NC Court Has Yet to Decide on Class Certification FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Farley" Suit Wins Final Approval FAMILY DOLLAR: "Hegab" Case Settlement Has Preliminarily Approval FAMILY DOLLAR: Jan. 22 Oral Argument Set in "Itterly" Case Appeal FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Court Ruling in "Premo" Class Action FAMILY DOLLAR: Provides Updates on "Scott" Gender Pay Action FAMILY DOLLAR: Delaware Court Rejects Bid to Certify Appeal FAMILY DOLLAR: "Moore" Class Action in Initial Stages FANNIE MAE: Removes "Romo" Class Suit to Illinois District Court FEDEX GROUND: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Employee Background Checks FLORIDA: Medicaid Program for Children Inadequate, Judge Rules FOOD SAFETY NET: Faces "Duyar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages FRESH FOOD: Recalls 35,865 Lbs. of Chili Products GARCIA FOODS: Recalls 190,450 Lbs. of Pork Products HAUSMAN FOODS: Recalls 38,400 Lbs. of Beef and Pork Products HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kittrell" Suit Says HEB MEAT: Recalls 83,666 Lbs. of Pork Products Due to Misbranding HOPE PROGRAM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims IC SYSTEMS: Accused of Wrongful Debt Collection Practices ICHIRO SUSHI: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours INTER-CON SECURITY: Appeals Court Denies Individual Arbitration J & B SAUSAGE: Recalls 45,904 Lbs. of Chicken and Beef Products J & B SAUSAGE: Recalls 9,909 Lbs. of Chicken Products JIMMY JOHN'S: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages JINON CORPORATION: Recalls 359 Lbs. of Boneless Beef Products KATADYN NORTH AMERICAN: Recalls 2,719 Lbs. of Spicy Sausage LA TOVA: Faces "Che" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MCCOY CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims MIAMI YACHT: Removes "Oliver" Suit to Florida District Court MINNESOTA: Feb. Trial Set for Sex Offender Program Class Action MONSANTO CO: Settlement in Bibb Medical Monitoring Action Final MONSANTO CO: Settlement in Personal Injury Cases Now Final NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Most of Granitville Derailment Suits OLD REPUBLIC: Customer's Bid to Revive Class Action Moot OPTICAL EXPRESS: Faces Claims Over Artificial Lens Issues PITA GRILL: Faces "Xochimitl" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Removes "Ledyard" Suit to E.D. New York QUALITY MEATS: Recalls 44,372 Lbs. of Frozen Pork Belly Product REAL FOODS: Recalls 308 Lbs. of Chef Salad With Ham and Turkey REITER BUNSIC: "Bernabe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS: Got $2.1MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit ROADVIEW INC: Faces "Holmes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime S. KATZMAN PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Mississippian Trusts Seek Indemnification SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Hart" Class Action SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Securities Class Action SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Securities Class Action SINGING RIVER: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees' Plan, Suit Claims SLEEP TRAIN: Accused of Not Providing Disabled-Accessible Paths SONY PICTURES: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach TD BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Collection of Overdraft Fees TILE SHOP: Faces "Osorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages UNIBRIGHT FOODS: Recalls 48,139 Lbs. of Ready-To-Eat Sukiyaki Beef US POSTAL: Employees' Health Information Compromised in Hacking VERIFIED HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gonzalez" Suit Says VISION'S: "Christie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff WD-40 COMPANY: Defending Against David Wolf Class Action WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action for $14.5 Million WELLS FARGO: Removes "Ligon" Class Suit to Florida District Court * High School Football Participants Rise Despite Concussion Risk ********* ABE'S FINEST: Recalls 80,050 Lbs. of Hickory Smoked Sliced Bacon ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abe's Finest Meats, a Palatka, Fla. establishment, is recalling approximately 80,050 pounds of hickory smoked sliced bacon products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. These items, produced on various dates between July 23 and December 11, 2014, are subject to recall: -- 10-lb. bulk frozen packages of "Cedar Creek Hickory Smoked Sliced Bacon." These products bear establishment number "EST. 18747" inside the USDA mark of inspection. They were shipped to distributors in Florida and Georgia. The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a label review. The product ingredient sodium nitrite is not declared on the product label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Ricky Brown, Plant Manager, at (386) 328-5157. Media with questions about the recall can contact Ricky Brown, Plant Manager, at (386) 328-5157. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem AIM DIRECTIONAL: "Chance" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Chance, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aim Directional Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00002 (S.D. Tex., January 5, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Aim Directional Services, LLC is a multi-service drilling company based in Corpus Christi, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com ALPHA RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Errol Wright, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. Alpha Recovery Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-07586 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq. FAGENSON & PUGLISI 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 268-2128 Facsimile: (212) 268-2127 E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com AMD IMPORTS: Recalls 35,275 Lbs. of Australian Lamb Products ------------------------------------------------------------ AMD Imports Inc., a Houston, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 35,275 pounds of Australian lamb products because they were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists. The product subject to recall includes: Lot A, 17,500lbs: 416 containers of Australian Bone-In Lamb Shoulder weighing from 36 to 51 lbs each with package code "730030". The product was packaged by Wagstaff Canbourne on dates ranging from Sept. 8, 2014 - Oct. 10, 2014. Lot B, 17,775lbs: 416 containers of Australian Bone-In Lamb Shoulder weighing from 36 to 51 lbs each with package code "730030". The product was packaged by Wagstaff Canbourne on dates ranging from Sept. 8, 2014 - Oct. 10, 2014. The product bears the Australian mark of inspection with establishment number "2773." The product was shipped to AMD Imports Inc., a distributor in Houston, Texas which was also the point of entry and further distributed to other distributors and retail locations. The problem was discovered using the Public Health Information System (PHIS) when FSIS import staff reviewed records and discovered that the independent third party carrier did not present the products for USDA inspection at the U.S. point of entry. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact Dan Martinez at (713) 928-3111. APOLLO EDUCATION: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Case Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint in the Securities Class Action (Apollo Institutional Investors Group). On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas N. Gaer naming us, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and misleading statements regarding our business practices and prospects for growth. That complaint asserted a putative class period stemming from December 7, 2009 to August 3, 2010. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same Court by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010 making similar allegations against the same defendants for the same purported class period. Finally, on October 4, 2010, another purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same Court by Robert Roth against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C. Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of allegations, but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007 to August 3, 2010. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 15, 2010, three additional parties filed motions to consolidate the related actions and be appointed the lead plaintiff. On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated Bank as lead plaintiffs. The case is now entitled, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735- PHX-JAT. On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V. Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson, and William J. Pepicello as defendants. The consolidated complaint asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007 to October 13, 2010. "On April 19, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss and oral argument on the motion was held before the Court on October 17, 2011. On October 27, 2011, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On December 6, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which alleges similar claims against the same defendants. On January 9, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 22, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and entered a judgment in our favor," the Company said. "On July 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 16, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint." APOLLO EDUCATION: Parties to Present Settlement in Teamsters Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the parties in the Securities Class Action (Teamsters Local 617 Pensions and Welfare Funds) plan to present a stipulation of settlement to the district court for approval in the near term. "On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased our stock between November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006," the Company said. "The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that we and certain of our current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by purportedly making misrepresentations concerning our stock option granting policies and practices and related accounting." The defendants are Apollo, J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales, Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling. "On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the same legal claims as the original complaint and adding claims for violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy. On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged securities fraud against the same defendants. "On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in our favor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012. On April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter and, at the request of the parties, the Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the appeal on April 30, 2014. The parties plan to present a stipulation of settlement to the district court for approval in the near term. "As of November 30, 2014, we have accrued an immaterial amount reflecting the agreed-upon settlement. We intend to pursue reimbursement of the settlement amount from our insurance carriers, although the outcome of any such recovery efforts is uncertain at this point." APOLLO EDUCATION: Defending Against "Gonzalez" TCPA Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that Mundy Gonzalez filed on September 25, 2014, a class action complaint against University of Phoenix alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint, which is captioned Gonzalez v. The University of Phoenix, 3:14-cv-02279 and which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges that University of Phoenix violated the TCPA by using automatic dialing systems to place unsolicited telephone calls to the cellular telephones of plaintiff and other individuals. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action," the Company said. APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Paredes" Suit Over Deceptive Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that Ashley Paredes filed on November 13, 2014, a class action complaint against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education Group, Inc. alleging unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of California law. The complaint, which is captioned Paredes v. The University of Phoenix, Inc. and was filed in California Superior Court in San Bernadino County, purports to assert claims on behalf of the class of students who enrolled in the University's educational programs for Psychology, Education, Nursing, Health Administration and Criminal Justice, and Technology from November 10, 2011 through November 10, 2014. The complaint alleges that the University misled class members regarding transferability of credits earned at the University and by promising or guaranteeing employment upon completion of studies. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and other members of the class. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action," the Company said. APOLLO EDUCATION: "Tandy" Suit Alleges Calif Labor Code Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that Carmin Tandy, who was previously employed as a faculty member at University of Phoenix, filed on December 24, 2014, a class action complaint against Apollo Education Group, Inc. and University of Phoenix alleging violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to the manner in which University of Phoenix faculty in California were compensated. The complaint, which is captioned Tandy v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., was filed in California Superior Court in San Diego County, purports to assert claims on behalf of faculty who were employed by defendants in California within either four, three, or one years of the filing of the complaint, and seeks to recover repayment of wages and other damages and relief under California law. "Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action," the Company said. APOLLO EDUCATION: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed "Saleh" Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the plaintiff in the Securities Class Action (Nader Saleh) voluntarily dismissed the complaint. On April 24, 2014, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Nader Saleh naming Apollo Education Group, Inc., Gregory W. Cappelli, and Brian L. Swartz as defendants and asserting a putative class period stemming from October 19, 2011 to April 1, 2014. The complaint is entitled Saleh v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., 2:14- cv-00877-SRB and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, among other complaints. On November 12, 2014, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint, and the district court subsequently terminated the case on November 13, 2014. ARRINGTON GROUNDS: Removes "Ettel" Class Suit to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Ettel, et al. v. Arrington Grounds Maintenance, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-008457-CI, was removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv- 03246-RAL-EAJ to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that they worked in excess of 40 hours per work week but no provision was made to compensate them at the rate of time and one-half for the hours in excess of 40 that they worked each week. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lindsey C. Kofoed, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN ROEBIG, PA 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683-2604 Telephone: (727) 786-5000 Facsimile: (727) 772-9833 E-mail: lck@florinroebig.com fgo@florinroebig.com The Defendants are represented by: Karen Maryellen Morinelli, Esq. Lara J. Peppard, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 100 N Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 512-3210 Facsimile: (813) 512-3211 E-mail: karen.morinelli@ogletreedeakins.com lara.peppard@ogletreedeakins.com B. ROBERT'S FOODS: Recalls 4,474 Lbs. of Chicken Noodle Soup ------------------------------------------------------------ B. Robert's Foods, a Charlotte, N.C. establishment, is recalling approximately 4,474 pounds of chicken noodle soup due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The Chicken Noodle Soup product is formulated with egg, a known allergen. However, the product was released with a Chicken and Wild Rice Soup side label, which does not declare this allergen. The items with the following label, produced on Dec. 12, 2014, subject to recall include: -- 16-oz. (454g) refrigerated packages of "Harris Teeter Fresh Foods Market Chef's Recipe Chicken and Wild Rice Soup" with UPC code "6108819179," product code "57878" and a "Sell-By 01/31/15" in the bottom right corner of the label. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P- 19198" inside the USDA mark of inspection. They were distributed to grocery stores in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington, D.C. A grocery store employee discovered that "Chicken Noodle Soup" products were incorrectly labeled as "Harris Teeter Fresh Foods Market Chef's Recipe Chicken and Wild Rice Soup." The grocery store reported the error to B. Robert's Foods which found that the products had been incorrectly labeled. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact B. Robert's Foods Quality Assurance Manager Antonio Gilges at (704) 944-5311. BAKER TILLY: Faces "Wong" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kachun Wong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baker Tilly Hong Kong Limited, Andrew David Ross, and Helena Laiha Kwok, Case No. 2:14-cv-09959 (C.D. Cal., December 31, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Baker Tilly Hong Kong Limited is a PCAOB-registered audit firm based in Hong Kong. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Baker Tilly Hong Kong Limited. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BANK OF AMERICA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Swift" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Swift, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, NB Holdings Corporation, and FIA Card Services, N.A., Case No. 3:14-cv-01539 (M.D. Fla., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for negligently and willfully placing calls to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff for non-emergency purposes using an automatic telephone-dialing system. The Defendants own and operate a multinational banking and financial services corporations. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq. Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 7th Floor, 201 N Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com jcohen@forthepeople.com BLAZER REAL: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel J. Morales v. Blazer Real Estate Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00003 (S.D. Tex., January 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Blazer Real Estate Services, LLC is a real estate developer doing business within the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn W. Patterson Jr., Esq. 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2820 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 961-9688 Facsimile: (713) 961-0941 E-mail: glenn.patterson@gmail.com BLUE GENTIAN: Falsely Marketed X-Hose Pro Products, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- William Dumone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Gentian, LLC, a Florida Corporation, National Express, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation, Emson USA, Inc., a New York Corporation, DAP PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Does I through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:14-cv-04046 (D. Md., December 31, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading representations of its X-Hose Pro products that it is made from a tough, multi layered expandable inner hose and a folded outer covering made from durable super-strong webbing, when in fact it often develops pinhole leaks, breaks, rips, cracks, leaks, explodes after minimal use. The Defendants specialize in the design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of X-Hose Pro products. The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A. One South Street, Suite 2600 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 752-6030 Facsimile: (410) 539-1269 E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com - and - Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara Avila, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com savila@milsteinadelman.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (215) 864-2810 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com CALIFORNIA BANK: Sued Over Failure to Provide ATMs for Blinds ------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. California Bank & Trust, Case No. 3:14-cv-03039 (S.D. Cal., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide ATMs that are accessible to sight-impaired individuals. California Bank & Trust operates nearly 100 banks in California with headquarter located at11622 E1 Camino Real, Suite 200, San Diego, CA, 92130. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS AND GRAY LLP 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: meghansherry@yahoo.com CAMPOS FOODS: Recalls 5,300 Lbs. of Chicken Products ---------------------------------------------------- Campos Foods, LLC, a Caryville, Tenn. establishment, is recalling approximately 5,300 pounds of chicken products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The recalled products contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not declared on the product label. The items produced on Dec. 2, 2014, that are subject to recall includes: Bulk boxes containing various weights of 90 pieces of "Rockin' Roasted Roasted Chicken Drum & Thigh (With Back) Smoke Flavor Added". 16-lb. bulk boxes containing approximately 32 pieces of "Rockin' Roasted Roasted Chicken Quarters Smoke Flavor Added". The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-2260T" inside the USDA mark of inspection. They were shipped to distribution centers nationwide. The problem was initially discovered when the firm was notified by a supplier that an ingredient was recalled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Chris Rodney, VP Sales, at (405) 603-7500. Media with questions about the recall can contact Jim English, President/COO, at (405) 603- 7500. CAPITAL ONE: $7.2-Mil. Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, Igor Kossov and Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, report that a Virginia federal judge on Jan. 2 preliminarily approved a settlement in which Capital One Bank (USA) NA agreed to pay at least $7.2 million in a class action claiming the bank deceived customers about fees and conditions applied to the use of their zero percent annual percentage rate checks. U.S. District Court Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who is presiding over the case led by Margaret Murr and David Reign, said in her ruling that the proposed settlement appeared within the range of reasonableness. Under the deal, Capital One plans to mail checks totaling more than $4.1 million to a group of customers who accepted a zero percent offer, and will invite customers who accepted more than one offer to submit claims that will add up to a minimum of $3.1 million, according to the settlement agreement. Each affected customer would receive either $2 or $5.50 in cash, providing them with "significant" monetary recovery, according to the settlement. "Class members will recover up to 44 percent of the average interest paid by class members as a result of the charges at issue in this lawsuit, despite Capital One's vigorous dispute over the amount that would be owed, even if liability was established," the agreement said. "These tiered payments reflect that not all class members were injured through Capital One's grace period and interest charge practices, and that some were harmed more than others." Capital One has also improved the disclosures in its zero percent offer materials, particularly with respect to its grace period and payment allocation effects, according to the settlement. The bank has also agreed to pay up to $1.5 million in attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel, the filing said. Judge Brinkema also conditionally certified the class, which includes customers who, between Aug. 1, 2008, and Jan. 2, 2015, accepted a zero percent offer from Capital One through his or her own account using an access check or no-hassle check, according to the ruling. Ms. Murr sued in September 2013, claiming Capital One manufactured payment shortfalls in her account to extract fees from her, in violation of her contract. When she tried to pay off her monthly purchase balances, the bank allocated part of each payment to cover the access check balance, ensuring that Ms. Murr constantly owed the bank interest on a segment of her account, according to the complaint. Ms. Murr also alleged that Capital One tried charging her interest on a zero percent APR transaction before the contractual grace period expired and submitted "derogatory" information about her to credit-rating agencies after she refused to pay certain fees associated with the transaction. The suit accused Capital One of breach of contract or, in the alternative, fraud for its failure to disclose the contractual terms, according to the settlement. Mr. Reign was added as a plaintiff in an amended complaint filed in December. Last June, Judge Brinkema granted the card company's motion to dismiss claims under the Fair Credit Billing Act and partially granted its motion to dismiss breach of contract claims, but kept claims for common-law fraud and constructive fraud, violation of the Truth in Lending Act, violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy G. Blood and Thomas J. O'Reardon II -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP; Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- of Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law LLP; Daniel M. Cohen, Robert J. Cynkar and Pamela Gilbert of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP; and John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan PA. Capital One is represented by Mary C. Zinsner -- mary.zinsner@troutmansanders.com -- S. Mohsin Reza and David N. Anthony of Troutman Sanders LLP and Aaron D. Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Amanda J. Rome and Peter Cunningham Magnuson of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. The case is Murr v. Capital One Bank (USA) NA, case number 1:13- cv-01091, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. CARMAX INC: Provides Updates on "Fowler" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- CarMax Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, provided updates on a class action lawsuit filed by John Fowler. On April 2, 2008, Mr. Fowler filed the lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling in favor of CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer a part of the lawsuit. The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues. Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling to the California Court of Appeal. On March 26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel arbitration. On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court. On February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of Appeal for further consideration. The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters," the Company said. CARMAX INC: Received $20.9MM From Toyota Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- CarMax Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Company is a class member in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit (In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litig., Case No. 10-2151 (C.D. Cal.), consolidated as of April 9, 2010) against Toyota Motor Corp. and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (collectively, "Toyota") related to the economic loss associated with certain Toyota vehicles equipped with electronic throttle controls systems and the potential unintended acceleration of these vehicles. "On July 9, 2014, we received $20.9 million in the settlement of this matter and recorded the gain at the time of receipt," the Company said. CELADON GROUP: Ordered to Pay $3.8 Million to Overcharged Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cory Schouten, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports that owner/operator drivers for Celadon Group Inc. do a lot of fueling at Pilot and Flying J truck stops, where they can use a charge card provided by Celadon to buy fuel at a discount to the cash price. After fueling, drivers get a receipt showing the charge -- an amount Celadon later deducts from their pay. But Celadon does not actually pay the same fuel price it charges back to its drivers, court documents show. The Indianapolis-based trucking giant pays a more deeply discounted rate, as much as 50 cents less per gallon of diesel, thanks to a bulk-purchase agreement with the travel center operator. A Marion County judge in December said the company's practice of withholding the higher price from its owner/operator drivers and keeping the savings breaches the terms of its agreement with 2,262 current and former drivers. Marion Superior Court Judge Michael D. Keele on Dec. 12 ordered Celadon to pay $3.8 million -- the amount the company over-charged drivers for fuel purchases over a 10-year period -- and another $1.7 million in pre-judgment interest. The judgment proceeds would be split among two truckers acting as lead plaintiffs, the other affected truckers, and attorneys at Cohen & Malad LLP who brought the case in October 2013 on a contingent-fee basis. Celadon spokesman Joe Weigel said the company does not comment on pending litigation. But a veteran trucking-industry analyst told IBJ that it's standard industry practice for large trucking firms to pass along only some of their bulk-purchase fuel savings to owner/operator drivers. If contract drivers don't want to buy fuel through the company's program, they don't have to. In Celadon's case, the program offered a 6-cent discount off the cash price for fuel in addition to the relative ease of accounting for the expense. "An individual owner/operator is not going to get the price Celadon pays, or J.B. Hunt or any other big trucker," explained the analyst, who did not want to be named for fear of being called for a deposition. "If you're buying lower volumes, you don't get the better rate." The analyst described the suit as a "nuisance" action that at most would lead big trucking firms to rework the fine print of contracts with owner/operator drivers. Rest assured, he said, they won't be passing along more fuel savings to contract drivers. The Marion County judgment against Celadon cites the company's contractor operating agreement, which allows withholding of compensation to cover "advances and other extensions of credit." The judge ruled that fuel discounts pocketed by Celadon are neither an advance nor an extension of credit. Celadon does not disclose to drivers that it pays the significantly lower price for gas, the suit says. "Based on this profit-making scheme -- disguised as a fuel-charge- back program -- Celadon improperly diverts significant portions of those drivers' hard-earned compensation to its own corporate coffers," the suit argues. Celadon responded to the judgment by filing a motion Dec. 19 to move the case to federal court, which has jurisdiction in class- action cases where damage amounts exceed $5 million. Richard Shevitz, the plaintiffs' attorney and a partner at Cohen & Malad, said the $5 million threshold is for actual damages, but Celadon is trying to tack on interest in hopes of finding a friendlier court. "We view their removal to federal court as a cynical effort to take a second bite at the apple," Mr. Shevitz said. Legal matters with the contract aside, it's not unreasonable for a trucking company to expect a return on what amounts to a credit arrangement with its contract drivers, said Joseph Schofer, a transportation policy expert and professor at Northwestern University's transportation center. There's a question as to what amount of profit is excessive, but ultimately drivers have the choice of buying from another vendor. "If owner/operators are not required to but continue to buy this way, there must be some advantage to them," Mr. Schofer said. Pilot Flying J, which is not a named party in the suit, is facing its own legal troubles over alleged fraud in its fuel-rebate program. The privately held company has agreed to pay $92 million to settle a federal criminal case and $85 million to settle a civil case, after the FBI and IRS raided its Tennessee headquarters in 2013. Celadon does not mention its suit under "legal matters" in its most recent quarterly report, for the period ended Sept. 30. "We are party to certain lawsuits in the ordinary course of business," the filing states. "We are currently not party to any proceedings which will have a materially adverse effect." Only about 600 of Celadon's roughly 3,000 drivers are owner/operators; the company pays the fuel bill directly for its salaried operators. Still, a $5.5 million judgment would be more than a drop in the bucket for Celadon; the company reported a quarterly profit of $8 million for the period ended Sept. 30. In the Marion County suit, Celadon has filed counterclaims against the lead plaintiffs, Charles Wilmoth and Kent Vassey, alleging they defaulted on their contracts. Mr. Wilmoth is from Mississippi, and Vassey is from Arkansas. About 113 of the class members are from Indiana, Celadon says in court filings. The company on its website says it has 4,000 employees. Its fleet consists of 3,000 tractors and 8,700 trailers. CK FRANCHISING: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Morris, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. CK Franchising, Inc., MD Enterprises LLC, and Marlin Duncan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00018 (M.D. Pa., January 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. CK Franchising, Inc. is the franchisor for a network of over 600 home care businesses operating under the Comfort Keepers brand name. MD Enterprises LLC is a franchisee of Comfort Keepers businesses in Hazleton, Wilkes-Barre, Pottsville, Bloomsburg, and Allentown. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Garrison, Esq. Jerry Martin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 - and - Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center Suite 211, 715 Twining Rd Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com COLUMBIAN CHEMICALS: "Talkington" Suit Moved to N.D. W. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- Third Party Defendant Chartis Specialty Insurance Company removed the class action lawsuit entitled Talkington v. Columbian Chemicals Company, Case No. 13-C-65K, from the Marshall County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Wheeling). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00166-JPB to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from insurance-related disputes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Wear, Esq. Clayton J. Fitzsimmons, Esq. FITZSIMMONS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1609 Warwood Avenue Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 277-1700 Facsimile: (304) 277-1705 E-mail: brent@fitzsimmonsfirm.com clayton@fitzsimmonsfirm.com lawyers@fitzsimmonsfirm.com - and - Herman D. Lantz, Esq. LANTZ LAW OFFICES 518 Seventh Street Moundsville, WV 26041 Telephone: (304) 810-4020 Facsimile: (304) 810-4021 E-mail: herman@lantzlawoffice.com Defendant Columbian Chemicals Company is represented by: Jay T. McCamic, Esq. MCCAMIC, SACCO & MCCOID, PLLC 56-58 Fourteenth Street P O Box 151 Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 232-6750 Facsimile: (304) 232-3548 E-mail: jtmccamic@mspmlaw.com Third Party Defendant Chartis Specialty Insurance Company is represented by: Don C. A. Parker, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC PO Box 273 300 Kanawha Blvd., East Charleston, WV 25321-0273 Telephone: (304) 340-3896 Facsimile: (304) 340-3801 E-mail: dparker@spilmanlaw.com COOK MEDICAL: Faces Suit in Ind. Over IVC Filter-Related Injuries ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsey Arsanto and Kenneth Arsanto, individually and as husband and wife v. Cook Medical Incorporated a/k/a Cook Medical, Inc.; Cook Incorporated; Cook Group, Inc. and William Cook Europe APS, Case No. 1:14-cv-02130-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., December 31, 2014) is an action for damages relating to the Defendants' development, testing, assembling, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, preparing, distribution, marketing, supplying, and selling the defective product sold under the name "inferior vena cava filter." The Plaintiffs allege that as a direct and proximate result of the Cook Filter's defects, Plaintiff Lindsey Arsanto suffered significant and severe injuries to her body resulting in significant expenses for medical treatment, as well as incurred a substantial loss of earnings, as well as non-economic damages. Cook Medical Incorporated, also known as Cook Medical, Inc. is an Indiana Corporation with a principal place of business located in Bloomington, Indiana. Cook Incorporated is the parent company of Cook Medical Incorporated and is an Indiana Corporation also headquartered in Bloomington. Cook Group, Inc. is the parent company of Cook Medical Incorporated and Cook Incorporated and is an Indiana Corporation with a principal place of business in Bloomington. William Cook Europe APS is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Bjaverskov, Denmark. Cook Europe's business form most closely resembles that of an American Corporation. Cook develops, manufactures, sells and distributes medical devices for use in various medical applications including endovascular cardiology, and surgical products throughout the United States and around the world. Cook's products include the Gunther Tulip Vena Cava Filter and the Cook Celect Vena Cava Filter, which are used for the prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism via placement in the vena cava. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Troy A. Brenes, Esq. LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 737-1501 Facsimile: (949) 737-1504 E-mail: tbrenes@lopezmchugh.com CREDIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Zori" Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wisam Zori, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv- 00009 (S.D. Cal., January 5, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive, unfair, and unlawful debt collection practices. Credit Collection Services, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection agency with a principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. Gouya A. Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com CVS HEALTH: Faces "Baugh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Junius Baugh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Health, CVS/Pharmacy, Case No. 2:15-cv-00014 (E.D. Pa., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. CVS Health is a pharmacy innovation company that owns and manages 7,700 retail pharmacy stores. CVS/Pharmacy is a retail division of CVS Health located at 1 CVS Drive, Woonsocket, RI. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. KOLMAN ELY PC 414 Hulmeville Ave Penndel, PA 19047 Telephone: (215) 750-3134 E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net DABECCA NATURAL: Recalls 3,450 Lbs. of Bacon Products ----------------------------------------------------- DaBecca Natural Foods, a Chicago, Ill. establishment, is recalling approximately 3,450 pounds of bacon products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The bacon products were produced on Nov. 13, 2014. The products subject to recall includes: -- 15-lb. bulk case of DaBecca Sliced Uncured Apple Smoked Bacon (12 - 14 slices per lb.) with case code 114670 30814 The products subject to recall, though produced under inspection, were packaged and shipped with labels that did not bear the USDA mark of inspection. These products were shipped to institutional distributors in California and Texas. The problem was discovered during a routine label review conducted by FSIS inspectors at a distribution facility. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact Jon Pederson, Director of Operations at (800) 793-6207. DANIEL WEAVER: Recalls 7,092 Lbs. of Halal Beef Products -------------------------------------------------------- The Daniel Weaver Company, a Lebanon, PA establishment, is recalling approximately 7,092 pounds of Halal Beef products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains peanuts, a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The Halal Beef Soujouk products were produced between Nov. 13 and Dec. 3, 2014. The products subject to recall includes: -- 16-oz. hoops of "Yoruk Brand Halal Beef Soujouk Dried Beef Sausage." -- 16-oz. links of "Yoruk Brand Halal Beef Parmak Soujouk Dried Beef Sausage." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 669" and were shipped to a distribution location in New Jersey. The problem was discovered when The Daniel Weaver Company was notified by its spice supplier that the cumin in a spice mix used to formulate the sausage may have been contaminated with peanut allergens. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Customer Service at (717) 274-6100. Media with questions about the recall can contact Media Relations at (215) 256-8867. DOLLAR GENERAL: Removes "Pleasant" Class Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., Case No. CIVDS1417709, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-02645-JFW-KK to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. KENNETH H. YOON LAW OFFICES One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 E-mail: kyoon@yoon-law.com - and - Stephanie Emi Yasuda, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3393 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 E-mail: syasuda@yoonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Barbara A. Fitzgerald, Esq. Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: bfitzgerald@morganlewis.com kmcguigan@morganlewis.com EMPIRE EAST: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jie Yi Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Empire East 34, Inc. d/b/a East Pacific Pan-Asian Bistro, Hui Ping Xiao, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe", Case No. 1:14-cv-10237 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 120 E. 34th Street, New York, NY 10016. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: johntroy@pllc.com FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Shuts Down Ad Buyers' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal and Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, report that the Ninth Circuit has shut down a putative contract and unfair competition class action brought by online advertisers who alleged Facebook overcharges for cost-per-click advertising, ruling that the plaintiffs never showed how "legitimate" clicks could be distinguished on a classwide basis. Lead plaintiffs Steven Price and Nathan Fox, who used the social media site to advertise their businesses, had accused Facebook of charging them for cost-per-click advertising, even when the clicks were "fraudulent," and did not result in any benefit to their companies. Messrs. Price and Fox contended this violated their contract with the social media giant, and had told a district court during their unsuccessful bid for class certification that their claims were common to more than 100,000 advertisers who used the service. In an unpublished memorandum issued on Dec. 26, a three-judge panel rejected the advertisers' argument that Facebook's use of uniform rules and algorithms when billing advertisers renders the class certifiable. The appeals panel wrote that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification because the plaintiffs' expert never backed up his claim that he could develop algorithms to determine if Facebook properly filtered out fraudulent clicks from the so-called legitimate clicks -- requests made by a human with an intent to view the link's content. "Nowhere in his report or deposition, however, did [the expert] provide the actual method for distinguishing between valid and invalid clicks. Further, in his deposition he acknowledged that he knows of no sources, including the [Interactive Advertising Bureau] guidelines, that provide specific parameters for determining what constitutes a valid click," the appeals panel wrote. On Dec. 26, Facebook Associate General Counsel Sandeep Solanki told Law360 via email that the company is, "pleased with the Ninth Circuit's decision affirming that the case should not proceed as a class action." The suit was brought in 2009 by a group of advertisers who had contracts with the social media site after using its publicly available self-service ad system. They each paid Facebook a rate for every click-through to their businesses' websites from an online ad, the court said. The advertisers claimed, however, that Facebook had charged them for clicks that shouldn't have counted because they resulted in no gain to their businesses, according to court filings. In April 2012, U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton shot down their attempt, holding that although the advertisers met some of the standards needed to certify the class, they failed to show that Messrs. Fox and Price adequately represented the interests of the proposed class because neither had proved that Facebook's alleged wrongdoing caused them or their businesses any damage. The proposed class would have included all individuals or businesses that paid Facebook for cost-per-click advertising from May 2009 to present. The proposal would have encompassed a wide range of businesses and corporations, some of which might have used another Facebook advertising channel, which involves direct negotiation with the social media site as opposed to the self-service system used by Messrs. Fox and Price. Because of the potential differences in interests, the two proposed lead plaintiffs are unfit representatives, Judge Hamilton said. On Dec. 9, when the case came before the Ninth Circuit for oral arguments in San Francisco, Jonathan Shub of Seeger Weiss LLP, representing the plaintiffs, argued that Judge Hamilton erred by rejecting the plaintiffs' interpretation of the contract -- the merits of the case -- before addressing whether the issue should resolved on a classwide basis. On Jan. 2, Mr. Shub told Law360 via email that the advertisers are "disappointed in the court's order," and are considering their available options. Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima, Richard A. Paez and U.S. District Judge Gordon Jay Quist sat on the panel that issued the Dec. 26 memorandum. The plaintiffs are represented by TerriAnne Benedetto -- tbenedetto@seegerweiss.com -- David R. Buchanan, Christopher A. Seeger and Jonathan Shub of Seeger Weiss LLP; Steven Nathan Berk of Berk Law PLLC; Gordon M. Fauth Jr. of Litigation Law Group; J. Paul Gignac -- j.paul@aogllp.com -- of Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP; Brian Kabateck of Kabateck Brown & Kellner LLP; Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- of Finkelstein Thompson LLP; Richard J. Burke and Jeffrey A. Leon of Quantum Legal LLC; and Jordan Sander Esensten of Wasserman Comden Casselman & Esensten LLP. Facebook is represented by Matthew Michael Brown, Michael Graham Rhodes and Whitty Somvichian of Cooley LLP and Kristin Linsley Myles and Jonathan H. Blavin -- Jonathan.Blavin@mto.com -- of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP. The case is Fox Test Prep et al. v. Facebook Inc., case number 12- 80104, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. FALLSBURG CENTRAL: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Hoag v. Fallsburg Central School District, Case No. 1:14- cv-10238 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014) is brought to remedy alleged discrimination based upon sex in the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff's employment, hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is a female and currently resides in the state of New York, Sullivan County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Blit, Esq. LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC 350 Fifth Avenue, 36th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 967-3000 E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com FAMILY DOLLAR: NC Court Has Yet to Decide on Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, provided updates on the North Carolina Multi-District Misclassification Litigation. Since 2001, the Company has been involved in a series of cases in which certain store managers ("Store Managers") have alleged they were improperly classified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Current and former Store Managers have filed lawsuits alleging the Company violated the FLSA and/or similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who are not entitled to overtime compensation. The majority of the complaints also request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs. In April 2008, a Multi-District Litigation forum ("MDL") was created in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division ("NC Federal Court") to handle cases alleging FLSA violations against the Company. The first two of the MDL cases were Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., filed in May 2004 and June 2006, respectively. In each of these cases, the court entered orders finding the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA was appropriate. Since that time, the NC Federal Court has granted 60 summary judgments ruling Store Managers are properly classified as exempt from overtime. Presently, there are a total of 10 named plaintiffs in the remaining cases in the MDL, for which the NC Federal Court has not decided the class certification or summary judgment issue. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from these cases. FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Farley" Suit Wins Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Court granted final approval of the settlement in the Farley class action. Farley, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Colorado, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on February 7, 2012, seeking unpaid overtime compensation for a class of current and former Colorado Store Managers. On March 21, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Class notice was issued in June 2013 and class discovery concluded in January 2014. In May 2014, the parties preliminarily agreed to settle the litigation and on October 30, 2014 the Court granted final approval of the settlement for an amount not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. FAMILY DOLLAR: "Hegab" Case Settlement Has Preliminarily Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Court preliminarily approved the settlement in the Hegab class action. Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3, 2011. The plaintiff is seeking unpaid overtime for himself and allegedly similarly situated current and former Store Managers under New Jersey law. The matter was administratively dismissed without prejudice. At the time of dismissal, no class had been certified. On January 14, 2014, the parties preliminarily agreed to resolve the litigation on a claims-made basis for an amount not material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. On June 6, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement with the Court. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on October 3, 2014. FAMILY DOLLAR: Jan. 22 Oral Argument Set in "Itterly" Case Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Third Circuit court has preliminarily scheduled oral argument on the appeal for January 22, 2015, in the Itterly class action. Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., which was formerly pending in the NC Federal Court, was remanded back to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania Store Managers whom the plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law. Discovery closed in June 2012. In August 2013, the Company filed summary judgment requesting the Court rule that Itterly was properly classified as exempt from overtime. The District Court granted the Company's motion on January 30, 2014, and the case is now dismissed. On February 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Appellate briefing has been concluded. The Third Circuit has preliminarily scheduled oral argument on the appeal for January 22, 2015. FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Court Ruling in "Premo" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Company currently awaits the ruling on its motion in the Premo class action. Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was filed in Worcester County Superior Court in the State of Massachusetts for alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime law on April 26, 2013. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to federal district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013. The plaintiffs challenged the removal to federal court. On March 28, 2014, the court remanded the claim back to state court. On April 7, 2014, the Company filed an interlocutory petition for appellate relief from the remand decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and awaits the appellate court's ruling. In the interim, the Company filed its answer to the lawsuit on May 13, 2014. The Company currently awaits the Court's ruling on its motion. FAMILY DOLLAR: Provides Updates on "Scott" Gender Pay Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Family Dollar Stores, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, provided updates on the Gender Pay Litigation entitled Luanna Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled as a putative class action or collective action under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in November 2008. Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to Strike the class allegations asserted in the complaint based in part upon the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal of the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed the trial court's ruling. While the Fourth Circuit agreed the original Complaint should not proceed as a class action, it remanded the case and instructed the trial court to allow the amendment of the complaint, and then consider, based upon the amended complaint, whether the case should proceed as a class action. On November 14, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied further en banc review of the decision. On January 24, 2014, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied further review of the Fourth Circuit's decision. The case is now back with the district court. On September 8, 2014, the district court entered a new Pretrial Order and Scheduling Plan and the parties will proceed with limited discovery pursuant to those Orders. The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI policy. At this time, the Company expects the EPLI carrier will participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has exceeded its insurance retention and expects any additional legal fees and settlements will be paid by the EPLI carrier. No reserve is appropriate due to the status of the case. FAMILY DOLLAR: Delaware Court Rejects Bid to Certify Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Delaware court denied an application in the Shareholder Litigation to certify an appeal from the denial of preliminary injunctive relief to the Delaware Supreme Court. Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and Dime Merger Sub, Inc., (subsidiary of Dollar Tree established for Family Dollar to merge into upon consummation of merger) in the Delaware Court of Chancery: -- Shiva Y. Stein v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9985, filed on July 31, 2014, -- Darrell Wickert v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10025, filed on August 11, 2014, and -- Stuart Friedman v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10080, filed on September 3, 2014. On August 26, 2014, the Stein and Wickert actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder, Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. On September 11, 2014, all three actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. Each of the three actions has been brought on behalf of a putative class of Family Dollar's stockholders, and each alleges, generally, that the members of the Family Dollar board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the pending Dollar Tree merger by, among other things, carrying out a process that the plaintiff alleges did not ensure adequate and fair consideration to Family Dollar's stockholders. The plaintiffs further allege that Family Dollar and Dollar Tree aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed motions for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the acquisition. On September 3, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to require Family Dollar to terminate its rights agreement and to direct the Family Dollar board to deem the terms of Dollar General's proposal sufficient to warrant entering into negotiations with Dollar General under the terms of the Dollar Tree merger agreement. At a hearing on September 10, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery concluded that the temporary restraining order application did not merit scheduling a hearing to consider such relief, and declined to do so. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was held on December 5, 2014, and on December 19, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied, in its entirety, the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. On December 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed an application in the Delaware Court of Chancery to certify an appeal from the denial of preliminary injunctive relief to the Delaware Supreme Court, which application the Delaware Court of Chancery denied on January 2, 2015. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims in these actions. Due to the preliminary status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from these lawsuits. FAMILY DOLLAR: "Moore" Class Action in Initial Stages ----------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the case Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is in the initial stages of litigation. On August 13, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action petition entitled Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Moore contends that he, and others similarly situated, received SMS text message advertisements from the Company, without providing express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Moore has requested that the court enter an order certifying the action as a class action, and appointing him as representative of the class. Mr. Moore further seeks judgment in favor of himself, and the proposed class, for all damages available under the TCPA, including statutory damages of $500 - $1,500 per willful violation. The Case has been removed from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. The case against the Company is in the initial stages of litigation and the Company is working to evaluate the allegations contained in the class action petition. Due to the preliminary status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this case. FANNIE MAE: Removes "Romo" Class Suit to Illinois District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Romo v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No. 2014-CH-18393, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-10508 to the proceeding. The Defendant is represented by: Linda T. Coberly, Esq. Mark William Lenihan, Esq. Stephen Victor D'Amore, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 E-mail: lcoberly@winston.com mlenihan@winston.com sdamore@winston.com FEDEX GROUND: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Employee Background Checks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shanita Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Fedex Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00013 (D. Colo., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide stand-alone up-front notice before procurement of consumer reports about its applicants and employees and failure to provide its applicants and employees with a copy of such report and a summary of Fair Credit Reporting Act rights before taking adverse action against them. The Defendants own and operate one of the largest courier delivery services companies in the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (970) 673-9075 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com FLORIDA: Medicaid Program for Children Inadequate, Judge Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Bolado and Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, report that a Florida federal judge on Dec. 31 ruled that children in the state's Medicaid program are not receiving adequate medical and dental care as required by federal law, ending a long-running class action challenge to the program. U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan found that the requirements under federal law that children receive preventative care are not being met, saying that surveys show "serious shortages of specialist care for Medicaid." In the 153-page opinion, issued after more than 90 days of trial over a two-year period, Judge Jordan said that one-third of Florida's children on Medicaid are not getting the preventative care they are supposed to receive. He also found that many of these children have to travel to other parts of the state or wait months to get care, according to the opinion. The judge added that 79 percent of the children enrolled in Medicaid get no preventative dental services, according to the opinion. In addition, the judge found violations of federal law through improper terminations of eligibility for children, transfers of children's providers without notifying their parents and failure to provide outreach to potential eligible users. Judge Jordan said he will hold additional hearings to determine what remedies should be ordered, though evidence presented at trial showed that Medicaid reimbursement rates are too low and should be increased to be closer to those of the Medicare program. "Given the record, I conclude that plaintiffs have shown that achieving adequate provider enrollment in Medicaid -- and for those providers to meaningfully open their practices to Medicaid children -- requires compensation to be set at least at the Medicare level," Judge Jordan said. Tommy Schechtman, president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, one of the plaintiffs in the case, applauded the decision and said it "should help ensure that all children of Florida receive a healthy start." In the lawsuit, which dates to 2005, the Florida Pediatric Society accused the state of failing to provide essential medical and dental services to children enrolled in federal medical assistance programs. Among other issues, the suit took aim at the state's physician reimbursement rates, which the plaintiffs said are so low that many doctors will not treat Medicaid patients. The state had tried to get the suit dismissed as moot because of the new Medicaid Managed Assistance Program, which would result in the vast majority of children on Florida Medicaid receiving improved services through eligible managed care programs. But Judge Jordan declined to dismiss the suit in July, saying that issuing a finding of mootness at that point would require him to speculate on whether rates would actually increase under the MMA program and on what would happen with the Affordable Care Act. The Florida Pediatric Society is represented by Carl E. Goldfarb, Stuart H. Singer and Lauren Fleischer Louis of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP and Benjamin D. Geffen of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. The state is represented by Stephanie A. Daniel, Albert J. Bowden III and Chesterfield Smith Jr. of Florida's Office of the Attorney General and Robert D.W. Landon III -- rdl@knpa.com -- of Kenny Nachwalter PA. The case is Florida Pediatric Society et al. v. Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration et al., case number 1:05-cv-23037, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. FOOD SAFETY NET: Faces "Duyar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mehmet Duyar, Michael Mitchell, Thelma Hilliard and Temeka Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Food Safety Net Services, Ltd., Case No. 3:15-cv-00017 (N.D. Tex., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. Food Safety Net Services, Ltd. has operations throughout the United States in which it performs laboratory analysis to verify food quality and safety. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Richard Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R MILTENBERGER PLLC 1340 N. White Chapel Blvd, Ste 100 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com FRESH FOOD: Recalls 35,865 Lbs. of Chili Products ------------------------------------------------- Fresh Food Manufacturing, a Freedom, Penn. establishment, is recalling approximately 35,865 pounds of chili products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains peanuts, a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The products subject to recall includes: 24-ounce plastic cup containers of "Giant Eagle Market District Firehouse Chili With Beans" with Sell By dates of 12/21/14, 1/1/15, 1/11/15, 1/21/15, or 1/29/15. 24-ounce plastic cup containers of Good Cents "Chili With Beans" with Sell By dates of 12/21/14, 1/1/15, 1/11/15, 1/21/15, or 1/29/15. 5-pound plastic bags of bulk "Market District Firehouse Chili with Beans" with Sell By dates of 1/16/15, 1/26/15, or 2/3/15 (sold hot by retail establishments). The products were produced on various dates from Nov. 21, 2014, through Dec. 30, 2014. The products bear the establishment number "40211" inside the USDA mark of inspection and have the sell by date printed on the product label. The products were shipped to retail outlets in Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The problem was discovered when Fresh Food Manufacturing was notified by its spice supplier that cumin used in the chili may have been contaminated with peanut allergens. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Giant Eagle Customer Service at 1-800-553-2324. Media with questions about the recall can contact the Giant Eagle media relations hotline at (412) 967-4551. GARCIA FOODS: Recalls 190,450 Lbs. of Pork Products --------------------------------------------------- Garcia Foods, Inc., a San Antonio, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 190,450 pounds of pork products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products may contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not declared on the product label. The Hill Country Fare Chorizo products were produced between Oct. 5, 2014 and Dec. 24, 2014. -- 12-oz. vacuum-packed, raw pork sausage link pieces of "Hill Country Fare Chorizo." -- 8-oz. vacuum-packed, raw pork sausage chubs of "Hill Country Fare Chorizo." The products to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 13205A" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were shipped to retail locations in Texas. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Pete Santos, SQF Practitioner, at (210) 349-6262 Ext. 224. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. HAUSMAN FOODS: Recalls 38,400 Lbs. of Beef and Pork Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Hausman Foods, LLC, a Corpus Christi, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 38,400 pounds of beef and pork products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain peanuts, known allergens which are not declared on the product label. They were produced on various dates from Sept. 17 to Dec. 6, 2014. The products subject to recall includes: -- 800-lb. combo corrugate boxes containing "Fully Cooked Barbacoa." -- 15-lb. boxes containing six 2.5 lb vacuum sealed packages of "Pork Chorizo." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 7190" or "EST. 7190A" inside the USDA mark of inspection and were shipped to processing and foodservice establishments in Texas. The problem was discovered when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a recall for "Adams Flavors, Food & Ingredients Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut Butter Protein in Cumin Products," which is directly related to this recall. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Jerry Simpson, Vice President, at (361) 883-5521. Media with questions about the recall can contact Steven R. McClure, President. HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kittrell" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Geraldine Kittrell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. t/a Heartland Campus Solutions ECSI, Case No. 2:15-cv-00022 (E.D. Pa., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically by purporting falsely to come from the creditor DeVry University and by impermissibly referencing Important Account Information. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. engages in the collection of consumer debts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore E. Lorenz, Esq. FLITTER LORENZ, P.C 450 North Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822-0781 Facsimile: (610) 667-0552 E-mail: lorenz@consumerslaw.com HEB MEAT: Recalls 83,666 Lbs. of Pork Products Due to Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------------- HEB Meat Center, a San Antonio, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 83,666 pounds of pork products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products may contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not declared on the product label. The chorizo and pork products were produced on various dates between Oct. 16, 2014 and Dec. 26, 2014. The products subject to recall include: -- Random weight vacuum-packed clear packages containing "Pork Chorizo." -- Random weight clear covered trays containing "HEB Mi Comida Chorizo Pork Chorizo." -- Random weight vacuum-packed clear packages containing "Seasoned Mexican Style Pork For Carne Al Pastor." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 7231" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were shipped to retail HEB stores in Texas. The problem was discovered when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a recall for "Adams Flavors, Foods & Ingredients Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut Protein In Cumin Products," which is directly related to this recall. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers with questions about the recall can contact HEB Customer Relations, at (800) 432-3113. Media with questions about the recall can contact Dya Campos, Director Public Affairs, at (210) 938-8075. HOPE PROGRAM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mundy Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The H.O.P.E Program, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00010 (S.D. Cal., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The H.O.P.E Program, LLC is a company operating nationwide for the purposes of assisting customers in their efforts to buy a home of their own. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. Gouya A. Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com IC SYSTEMS: Accused of Wrongful Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Claude Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. I.C. Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15- cv-00048 (D.N.J., January 5, 2015), seeks to redress the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. I.C. Systems, Inc. is a collection agency with its principal office located at 444 Highway 96 East, St. Paul, MN 55164. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC 1669 East 12th Street Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com ICHIRO SUSHI: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ji Li, Jianhui Wu, Bin Zhang, De Ping Zhao, and Kai Zhao, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Ichiro Sushi, Inc., d/b/a Ichiro Sushi Restaurant, New Ichiro Sushi Inc. d/b/a Ichiro Sushi Restaurant, Ichiro Asian Fusion, Inc. d/b/a Ichiro Fusion, Hiu Chen, Vincent Chan, Winson Chan, Joe Chow, Jame Wang, John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-10242 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate Ichiro Sushi Restaurant located at 1694 2nd Avenue, New York, NY 10128. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: johntroy@pllc.com INTER-CON SECURITY: Appeals Court Denies Individual Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that a California appeals court on Dec. 31 refused to force a putative class action overtime suit against Inter-Con Security Systems Inc. into individual arbitration, ruling the company waived its right to arbitration after it requested discovery documents relating to the entire potential class. Former security guard Brian Bower sued Inter-Con in August 2011, alleging it failed to give armed guards required meal and rest periods. Inter-Con didn't immediately move to compel arbitration, but said a series of arbitration agreements prevented Mr. Bower from bringing representative actions. But despite claiming it was only responding to Bower's individual claims, Inter-Con gave at least one substantive answer to Mr. Bower's discovery request on class issues and sent its own requests on classwide issues. Inter-Con said wage and hour defendants often seek information on individuals with similar claims, so seeking classwide discovery was not inconsistent with its right to arbitrate. "We will simply reiterate the trial court's response to Inter- Con's claim: 'Come on. Of course it is,'" Justice William R. McGuiness wrote for a unanimous panel. "Discovery concerning individuals who may support a plaintiff's factual claims is distinct from classwide discovery." Inter-Con had objected to most of Mr. Bower's discovery requests on the grounds that he had to arbitrate his claims and generally refused to give information about others in the proposed class. But in response to a special interrogatory, the company said it employed 29 armed guards who fit the class description, according to the opinion. It also sent a substantial number of requests for documents pertaining to the whole class, the panel held. Inter-Con only sought to force arbitration after Mr. Bower indicated he would amend his complaint to include unarmed guards as well. The company argued its actions did not prejudice Bower because it didn't give Inter-Con an unfair advantage in the litigation, other than having him pay some court costs and legal expenses by responding to its discovery requests. The panel, however, ruled that causing Mr. Bower an unreasonable delay in taking advantage of the efficiencies of arbitration was enough to waive its right to compel. Inter-Con's tactics, including pursuing a classwide settlement, made Mr. Bower believe the company intended to keep the dispute in court, according to the opinion. The legal expenses were also spent on work that would be useless in arbitration because it was beyond the scope of Bower's individual claims. "The crux of the prejudice suffered by Bower is that he suffered delay and incurred costs in litigating and attempting to settle class claims that Inter-Con led him to believe would be encompassed within the litigation," Justice McGuiness wrote. Inter-Con also argued a lower court improperly focused on the amount of discovery the company asked for instead of how much it actually obtained. Inter-Con gained no unfair advantage because Bower refused to give substantive answers, it claimed. "A party's actions in litigation that are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate cannot be ignored simply because they did not succeed in achieving that party's goals," Justice McGuiness wrote. Justices William R. McGuiness, Stuart R. Pollak and Peter J. Siggins sat on the panel that reached the Dec. 31 decision. Mr. Bower is represented by Mathew R. Bainer -- mbainer@scalaw.com -- and Molly A. DeSario of Scott Cole & Associates APC. Inter-Con is represented by Ronald W. Novotny -- rnovotny@aalrr.com -- Robert R. Roginson and Amber M. Solano of Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo PLC. The case is Brian Bower v. Inter-Con Security Systems Inc., case number A135940, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District. J & B SAUSAGE: Recalls 45,904 Lbs. of Chicken and Beef Products --------------------------------------------------------------- J & B Sausage Co., a Waelder, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 45,904 pounds of chicken and beef products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products may contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not declared on the product label. The chicken and beef products were produced on various dates between Aug. 25, 2014 and Dec. 15, 2014. These products are subject to recall: -- 5-lb. packages of fully cooked "Chefs-In-A-Bag CHICKEN TACO FILLING." -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED Texas Style BEEF CHILI No Beans." -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED Taqueria Style PICADILLO Seasoned Ground Beef with Potatoes, Onion, Tomatoes and Peppers." -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED CARNE GUISADA Seasoned Beef in Gravy." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 7066 or P-7066" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were shipped to HEB retail locations and Garland Independent School District in Texas. The problem was discovered when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a recall for "Adams Flavors, Foods & Ingredients Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut Protein In Cumin Products," which is directly related to the recall. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Bonnie Hyman, Risk Management, at (830) 203-9002. J & B SAUSAGE: Recalls 9,909 Lbs. of Chicken Products ----------------------------------------------------- J & B Sausage Co., a Waelder, Texas establishment, is recalling an additional 9,909 pounds of chicken product due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products may contain peanuts, known allergens, which are not declared on the product label. The recall expansion includes items produced on various dates between Aug. 19, 2014, and Dec. 2, 2014. This product is subject to recall: -- 12-oz. packages of fully cooked "CAJUN HOLLAR BRAND INC. CREOLE STYLE BOUDIN." On Dec. 27, 2014, the company recalled 45, 904 pounds of Chicken and Beef products that were produced between August 25 and Dec. 15, 2014. These products were included in the initial recall. -- 5-lb. packages of fully cooked "Chefs-In-A-Bag CHICKEN TACO FILLING." -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED Texas Style BEEF CHILI No Beans." -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED Taqueria Style PICADILLO Seasoned Ground Beef with Potatoes, Onion, Tomatoes and Peppers." -- 1-lb. packages of HEB "FULLY COOKED CARNE GUISADA Seasoned Beef in Gravy." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 7066 or P-7066" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were shipped to retail locations in Texas. The problem was initially discovered when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a recall for "Adams Flavors, Foods & Ingredients Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut Protein In Cumin Products," which is directly related to this recall. The additional product was discovered by the establishment while reviewing records as part of their recall activity. They then notified FSIS personnel of the issue. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Bonnie Hyman, Risk Management, at (830) 203-9002. JIMMY JOHN'S: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Rodriguez, Kerry Kavanagh, Peter Womack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jimmy John's, LLC, Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, and Jimmy John's Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00002 (M.D. Fla., January 5, 2015), seeks to recover overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Jimmy John's Sandwich Shops franchise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar R. Jones, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: fran@klafterolsen.com seth@klafterolsen.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. Ossai Miazad, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 29th Floor, 3 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com mnl@outtengolden.com om@outtengolden.com JINON CORPORATION: Recalls 359 Lbs. of Boneless Beef Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Jinon Corporation, dba Nijiya Market, a Torrance, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 359 pounds of frozen boneless beef products produced in Japan that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists. These products are subject to recall: Packages of various sizes containing cuts of Tender Loin, Chuck Roll, Ribeye, Strip Loin, Brisket, Chuck Short Ribs, Inside, Outside, Short Ribs, Top Sirloin Butt, Clod, Knuckle, Short Plate and Shank all sold with a Nijiya Market label These items were produced in Japan on Aug. 6, 2014 and imported in September of 2014. The importer cut, repackaged and sold the products at a retail store in Torrance, California. The problem was discovered when FSIS import staff reviewed records and discovered that the importer did not present the products for USDA inspection at the U.S. point of entry. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Mitsuhiro Ueda, Merchandising Purchasing Manager at (310) 787-3305. Media with questions about the recall can contact Seiji Kurata, Merchandising Department Director at (310) 787-3305. KATADYN NORTH AMERICAN: Recalls 2,719 Lbs. of Spicy Sausage ----------------------------------------------------------- Katadyn North American Foods, LLC, a Rocklin, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 2,719 pounds of spicy sausage products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The Spicy Sausage Pasta products were produced on various dates from June 14 - Nov. 13, 2014. The products subject to recall: -- 5 -oz. foil laminated pouches containing "ALPINEAIRE SPICY SAUSAGE PASTA." The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 8132" inside the USDA mark of inspection. They were shipped to retail locations nationwide. The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a label review. The label indicates that the product contains beef, but is actually formulated with pork sausage. Pork is not indicated on the label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Tim Pratt, General Manager, at (800) 322-6325 x-15. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem LA TOVA: Faces "Che" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Guangzhao Che and Jian Zheng, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. La Tova, Inc., Griffon Sportswear, Inc., Gropius Design Purchasing Group, Inc., Billburg LLC, Atilon, Inc., Noarc II, Inc., Wonderland Workshop, LLC, John Doe 01-05 Corporations, Case No. 1:14-cv-10243 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Corporate Defendants operate around a dozen specialty sneaker and apparel stores in the New York metro area. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: johntroy@pllc.com MCCOY CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Rivera, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) v. McCoy Corporation d/b/a/ McCoy's Building Supply, Case No. 2:15-cv-00003 (D.N.M., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. McCoy Corporation owns and operates 86 building supply retail stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Powers Milstein MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE 595 Canyon Blvd. Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 Facsimile: (303) 957-5754 E-mail: milstein.law.office@gmail.com MIAMI YACHT: Removes "Oliver" Suit to Florida District Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Oliver v. Miami Yacht & Engine Works, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-028610 CA01, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv- 24917-JLK to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges a cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks recovery of minimum wages and overtime, among other claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. Brody Max Shulman, 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: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq. Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES Phillips Point - East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1120E West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 659-3300 Facsimile: (561) 659-1911 E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com edwoskin@schwarzberglaw.com - and - H. Clay Roberts, Esq. ROBERTS & DURKE Alhambra Towers, Penthouse I 121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1603 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 442-1700 Facsimile: (305) 442-2559 E-mail: roberts@rdlawnet.com MINNESOTA: Feb. Trial Set for Sex Offender Program Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Catharine Richert, writing for MPR News, reports that in February 2014, a federal judge warned that the state's sex offender program is unconstitutional. And in late 2014, a federal court-appointed task force issued a report that recommended individual evaluations for locked-up sex offenders and urged that the state's civil commitment law be applied only to the most dangerous. The task force is the result of a class action lawsuit filed by some in the program who say the law is unconstitutional. The trial is set for February. The Legislature failed to take action on the issue last session. The question now is whether it will make changes to the law based on the recommendations or wait for the court to act. Dayton and Bakk have said they want to move on the issue. But Rep. Tara Mack, R-Apple Valley, who will chair the Health and Human Services Reform committee this year, told MPR News that she's wary of doing anything before the court makes a decision. "The risk we take in crafting legislation is potentially putting something into a bill . . . prematurely, prior to the court's ruling," Ms. Mack said. MONSANTO CO: Settlement in Bibb Medical Monitoring Action Final --------------------------------------------------------------- Monsanto Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the settlement in the Bibb medical monitoring class action is final and the parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement. On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. ("Allen") v. Monsanto, et al., in the Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. ("Akzo Nobel"). Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007. On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. ("Bibb") v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action for property damage and for medical monitoring. On Nov. 2, 2011, the court, in response to defense motions, entered an order decertifying the property class. After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began on Jan. 3, 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle as to both the medical monitoring and the property class claims. The proposed settlement provides for a 30 year medical monitoring program consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program, and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9 million. On Feb. 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement. A fairness hearing was held on June 18, 2012, resulting in the trial court's final approval of the settlement. Certain plaintiffs objected to the approval of the settlement and appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On Nov. 22, 2013, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and upheld the fairness of the class action settlements. The objector filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which was denied. The settlement is final and the parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement. MONSANTO CO: Settlement in Personal Injury Cases Now Final ---------------------------------------------------------- Monsanto Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the settlement in personal injury cases is final and the parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement. In October 2007 and November 2009, a total of approximately 200 separate, single plaintiff civil actions were filed in Putnam County, West Virginia, against Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo Nobel (and several of its affiliates), Flexsys America Co. ("Flexsys America") (and several of its affiliates), Solutia, and Apogee Coal Company, LLC ("Apogee Coal"). These cases allege personal injury occasioned by exposure to dioxin generated by the Nitro Plant during production of 2,4,5T (1949-1969) and thereafter. Monsanto has agreed to accept the tenders of defense in the matters by Pharmacia, Solutia, Akzo Nobel, Flexsys America, and Apogee Coal under a reservation of rights. During the discovery phase of these several claims, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve all pending personal injury claims which is reflected in the above liability. The settlement is final and the parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Most of Granitville Derailment Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Hodson, writing for The Augusta Chronicle, reports that in the aftermath of the Graniteville train derailment, thousands of people filed suit or joined in class-action lawsuits against Norfolk Southern. With lightning speed in the legal world, the company agreed to settle most of the lawsuits filed on behalf of the survivors of those who died of chlorine poisoning, those who were injured, those who were traumatized, those whose property was damaged and nearly 5,400 people who had to be evacuated on Jan. 6, 2005. According to federal court records and annual reports from Norfolk Southern, the largest settlement was to the owners of Avondale Mills, which closed in 2006. The total paid was not revealed, but even after its insurance companies paid on the settlements, $13 million was not covered. The company later lost a dispute with one insurance company that rejected coverage of $43 million, according to an annual report to stockholders. According to an earlier report in The Augusta Chronicle, the class-action lawsuit settlement said those who were injured would receive from $10,000 to several hundred thousands of dollars. Norfolk Southern was sued by the U.S. government through the Environmental Protection Agency, which accused the company of polluting Horse Creek, Flat Rock Pond and Bridge Creek Pond, according to court records. In 2008, the company entered a consent decree and paid a $4 million civil penalty. It also agreed to special training for emergency cleanup of hazardous materials, and it agreed to restock the affected waters with 1,000 fish -- catfish, bluegill, warmouth sunfish, largemouth bass and black crappie. Norfolk Southern was also responsible for an estimated $100,000 job of restoring vegetation in the Horse Creek watershed. Avondale Mills employees who lost their jobs after the plant closed were unsuccessful in their lawsuit. According to court records, U.S. District Court Judge Margaret B. Seymour ruled that there was no direct or special relationship between the railroad company and mill employees in a way that Norfolk Southern could be found negligent and responsible for the lost jobs. OLD REPUBLIC: Customer's Bid to Revive Class Action Moot -------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit has dismissed as moot an Old Republic Home Protection Co. customer's bid to revive his putative class action alleging the home warranty company violates California's consumer protection law, finding the plaintiff lacked standing because he settled his individual claims against the company. Former Old Republic customer Douglas Campion had alleged the company, which takes a monthly premium in exchange for a promise to replace or repair damaged or defunct home goods, denies qualified claims and issues lowball payments in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Mr. Campion had urged the appeals court to overturn a district court's grant of partial summary judgment to Old Republic and find that the company's home warranties are a consumer service regulated by the CLRA, not insurance. In the Dec. 31 published opinion, a split three-judge panel held that the appeals court does not need to evaluate the merits of Campion's arguments because he settled his individual claims against Old Republic before he appealed the lower court's summary judgment ruling. "Although Campion expressly retained his right to appeal the putative class claims, that fact makes no difference," the panel wrote in the per curiam opinion. "Campion argues that he has a personal stake in getting the class certified because he maintains an interest in the matter as a private attorney general. Our case law, however, requires a more concrete interest." Mr. Campion filed suit in San Diego Superior Court in March 2009, alleging Old Republic, which sells home-warranty plans in California and 21 other states, uses false and misleading statements to advertise its services, improperly denies legitimate claims, performs cheap "Band-Aid" fixes and shifts most repair costs to consumers, according to his opening appeal brief. A month later, Old Republic removed the case to federal court. Mr. Campion alleged causes of action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and other claims including violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and the CLRA. In January 2011 U.S. District Judge Jan M. Adler denied Campion's motion for class certification, and in March 2012 Judge Adler granted summary judgment to Old Republic, ruling that the CLRA does not apply to the home warranty plans. After the judge denied Campion's motion to remand the case to state court, he and Old Republic filed a joint motion dismissing with prejudice Campion's individual claims and dismissing without prejudice all class claims. During oral arguments in October, Yury Kolesnikov of Bottini & Bottini Inc., representing Mr. Campion, urged the panel to revive the suit and overturn Judge Adler's rulings, arguing that Mr. Campion maintained a personal stake in the matter, and that on the merits, the home warranty plans should be categorized as a service, not insurance. Mr. Kolesnikov argued that the California Supreme Court's 2009 decision Fairbanks v. Superior Court, which ruled that life insurance is not a "good" or "service" subject to the CLRA, also provides a framework for ruling that home warranties are a "service," because unlike life insurance, they do not provide simply for cash payments, but for actual repair services to be provided. On Dec. 31, Circuit Judge John B. Owens issued a dissenting opinion with the panel's opinion, saying he believes Campion's appeal should have remained viable because he retained a personal stake in representing the proposed class. But despite finding that Campion's appeal should have been decided with the merits, Judge Owens wrote that he agreed with the panel's ultimate result, because the district court ruled correctly. Circuit Judges Andrew Kleinfeld, Susan P. Graber and John B. Owens sat on the panel that issued the Dec. 31 opinion. Mr. Campion is represented by Francis A. Bottini Jr., Albert Y. Chang and Yury A. Kolesnikov of Bottini & Bottini Inc. Old Republic is represented by Jay N. Varon -- jvaron@foley.com -- Tammy H. Boggs and Marshall J. Hogan of Foley & Lardner LLP. The case is Douglas J. Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection Company Inc., case number 12-56784, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. OPTICAL EXPRESS: Faces Claims Over Artificial Lens Issues --------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Boffey, writing for The Guardian, reports that the multibillion-pound corrective eye surgery industry has been thrust into the spotlight as regulators announced they were investigating claims that a new artificial lens implanted into the eyes of thousands of patients had caused serious loss of vision. Officials have launched their inquiry after a number of concerned surgeons submitted testimony that patients had complained of defective vision, with some, according to one doctor, struggling to see clearly beyond the outstretched length of their arms. Around 120,000 people seeking a life without glasses undergo corrective eye surgery every year either by laser or, often in the case of the over-50s, through the replacement of their natural lenses through surgery. It is believed that over the last year many thousands were fitted with the Mplus X lens in a boom time for the industry fuelled by marketing and the promise of interest- free credit on bills, which can be in excess of GBP3,000 an eye. The lens in question, manufactured by German company Oculentis and introduced into the UK last January, was supposed to offer an improved performance on previous models. The Observer has learned, however, that Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust, the largest ophthalmic centre in Europe, submitted an official report about the lens after four of its six patients who had had the implant reported a worrying loss of quality of vision. Oculentis's chief executive, Ben Wanders, also confirmed that its Australian distributor had decided "this is not a lens for the Australian people" after complaints in that country from surgeons. A surgeon who worked until December for the market leader in corrective eye surgery, Optical Express, claimed that he voiced concerns about the performance of the Mplus X lens in the UK to his then employer earlier last year. George Settas, who worked as a surgeon at Optical Express for four years, said: "I told them, on more than one occasion, that I had concerns regarding the performance of the Mplus X lens, as I felt that there were a lot more patients experiencing quality of vision problems with this lens than other lenses. Explanting -- ie removing -- such a lens is not an easy procedure at all. Concerned by what I felt was an increase in the number of explants with the Mplus X lens, I raised the issue within Optical Express. In the end I had to file a report with the appropriate regulatory authority." He added: "The patients were complaining that they couldn't see clearly, usually at distance. Most were saying that they could read but that they could not see properly beyond their arm's length, which was a bit surprising. You would not expect people to have a problem at that distance." Optical Express confirmed that Mr. Settas did express concerns about quality of vision problems with the Mplus X lens but said that the surgeon's experience was anecdotal while its scientific study of outcomes suggested there was no cause for concern. Mr. Settas also claimed that Optical Express only finally removed stocks of the Mplus X lenses from its clinics in late November, despite him raising concerns in September. Optical Express's clinical services director, Stephen Hannan, said that some banks of the lens remained in clinics and that concerns about the lens had not been the reason for the withdrawal of others. He denied that any concerns were raised by Mr. Settas until October. Mr. Hannan said that the company had concluded that there was no advantage in continuing to stock the new Mplus X version rather than the older model as it had similar outcomes. He said: "The Mplus X lens has excellent ocular outcomes for patients. Our experience and detailed assessment of these ocular outcomes confirms this to be the case." On Jan. 3, lawyers who represented a 28-year old-woman to whom Optical Express was ordered to pay GBP500,000 in damages in September after her eyes were left so damaged by laser eye surgery that she has to wear sunglasses during the day said 45 complainants against the firm had contacted them since the case, and that some had been fitted with the Mplus X lens, which may form part of a class action. Nick Grant, a partner at Devonshires solicitors, said: "I think there will be further individuals seeking to make a claim against Optical Express and expect that, based on the number of claims coming in, Devonshires will be bringing a class action against Optical Express in the near future on this Mplus X lens issue. Devonshires are currently obtaining copies of clients' medical records before reviewing and instructing an expert to prepare a report. My advice is that anyone who thinks they may have been given an Mplus X lens and had a disappointing outcome should seek legal advice." A spokesman for the Medical Health Regulatory Authority said: "We are currently investigating and will take action if necessary." PITA GRILL: Faces "Xochimitl" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Timoteo Xochimitl, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Pita Grill of Hell's Kitchen Inc., eta al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10234 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Pita Grill of Hell's Kitchen Inc. owns and operates a chain of health food restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Removes "Ledyard" Suit to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Ledyard v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Case No. 709379/2014, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07578-NG-VVP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's claims arise out of a group disability insurance policy issued to The City of New York Management Benefits Fund. The Plaintiff applied for long-term disability benefits, which Prudential initially approved. Prudential subsequently terminated the Plaintiff's LTD benefits after finding that the Plaintiff did not meet the definition of disability as set forth in the insurance policy. The Plaintiff now seeks to recover LTD benefits by way of a breach of contract claim. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for deceptive practices under N.Y. General Business Law, unfair claim settlement practices in violation of New York Insurance Law Section 2601, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Delott, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY DELOTT 366 North Broadway, Suite 410k-3 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (888) 572-0861 Facsimile: (516) 942-4385 E-mail: jeffdelott@iwantmydisability.com The Defendant is represented by: Tara M. Conroy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 218-5510 Facsimile: (917) 344-1310 E-mail: tconroy@seyfarth.com QUALITY MEATS: Recalls 44,372 Lbs. of Frozen Pork Belly Product --------------------------------------------------------------- Quality Meats, Inc., an Omaha, Neb., establishment, is recalling approximately 44,372 pounds of frozen pork belly product because they were not presented at the border for USDA-FSIS Import Inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists. Product subject to recall includes: Various weight cases of "rosderra IRISH MEATS Swine Pork Belly" The Frozen Pork Single Ribbed Bellies product was packaged March 18, 2014 through April 10, 2014. The product subject to recall bears the Ireland establishment number "IE 356 EC." This product was shipped to retail establishments and distributors in Georgia, Illinois, and Washington where the products would have been repackaged. The problem was discovered during a routine review using the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) database. ACE is a web- based portal for the collection and use of international trade data maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS issues a Public Health Alert for an imported product when the country of origin recalls the product. FSIS issues a recall for imported product when the product is not presented for inspection at the U.S. border. A failure-to-present (FTP) occurs when importers fail to present a shipment to FSIS for import inspection prior to the product entering U.S. commerce. Failure-to-present will result in the recall of the product. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Ton Kelly, Owner, at (402) 509-2765. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem REAL FOODS: Recalls 308 Lbs. of Chef Salad With Ham and Turkey -------------------------------------------------------------- Real Foods LLC, a Kent, Wash., establishment, is recalling approximately 308 pounds of Chef Salad with Ham and Turkey due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains fish (anchovies), a known allergen which is not declared on the product label. The product subject to recall: -- 12.5-ounce clear plastic containers of "CHEF SALAD WITH HAM (WATER ADDED) AND TURKEY." The product was produced on Dec. 6, 2014. The product bears the establishment number "34834" inside the USDA mark of inspection and has "Sell by: 12/11/2014" printed on the product label. The product was shipped to retail outlets in Oregon and Washington. The problem was discovered by a customer, who notified the company. The product is labeled for Ranch dressing, but contains a Caesar salad dressing pouch. The Caesar salad dressing contains anchovies. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Erin Sherry, sales manager, at (206) 432-3426. Media with questions about the recall can contact Bill Trazewich, sales manager, at (214) 354- 1662. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem REITER BUNSIC: "Bernabe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph G. Bernabe, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Reiter Bunsic Contractors, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Louis Bunsic, individually, Case No. 9:15-cv-80008 (S.D. Fla., January 5, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Reiter Bunsic Contractors, Inc. provides services such as building various types of commercial business and residential structures, home renovation and remodeling service and outdoor structure building projects. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene Dieudonne Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS: Got $2.1MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Richardson Electronics, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that during the first quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company received a settlement in the amount of $2.1 million related to an anti-trust class action lawsuit settlement. ROADVIEW INC: Faces "Holmes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Brannon Holmes and Anthony McMahan v. Roadview, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00004 (W.D. Wis., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Roadview, Inc. a transportation engineering company located at 4801 Tradewinds Parkway, Madison, Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin Marie Madden, Esq. David C. Zoeller, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL EHLKE & PERRY, S.C. 222 West Washington Ave, Ste. 450, PO Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 E-mail: cmadden@hq-law.com dzoeller@hq-law.com S. KATZMAN PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan John Figueroa, Omar Camacho, Leonardo Bryan, and Demetrius Tompkins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. S. Katzman Produce Inc., Stephen Katzman, Stefanie Katzman, and Mario Andreani, Case No. 1:15-cv-00002 (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2015), seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate S. Katzman Produce, a leading wholesaler of produce to the New York City Terminal Market at Hunts Point. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com nmelito@fslawfirm.com SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Mississippian Trusts Seek Indemnification ----------------------------------------------------------- Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation. On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the "Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward. The defendants have filed respective motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the court. Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Defend Against "Hart" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and the other defendants intend to defend the lawsuit filed by James Hart and fifteen other named plaintiffs. On July 15, 2013, James Hart and fifteen other named plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy, Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest. On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action complaint was filed on November 10, 2014, in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the case styled Steve Surbaugh vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward, James D. Bennett, Eddie M. LeBlanc, and Randall D. Cooley. The complaint asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased SandRidge securities between March 1, 2013, through November 4, 2014, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding SandRidge's business, operations and future prospects because such statements failed to properly account for the penalties SandRidge accrued under its treating agreement with Occidental Petroleum Corporation and, as a result, SandRidge's financial statements were materially false and misleading during the class period. An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action complaint was filed on November 11, 2014, in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the case styled Steven T. Dakil vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom L. Ward, James D. Bennett, and Eddie M. LeBlanc. The complaint asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired SandRidge securities between February 28, 2013, and November 3, 2014, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding SandRidge's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SandRidge was improperly accounting for penalties owed to Occidental Petroleum Corp. under a treating agreement on an annual basis when it was required to do so on a quarterly basis; (ii) SandRidge's quarterly and annual financial and operating results for the periods ending December 31, 2012 through June 30, 2014, were overstated and required restatement; (iii) defendant Ward engaged in improper related party transactions; (iv) SandRidge lacked proper internal controls over financial reporting; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, SandRidge's financial statements were materially false and misleading during the class period. An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. SINGING RIVER: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees' Plan, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Regina Cobb, Susan Creel, Phyllis Denmark, on behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated v. Singing River Health System, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00001 (S.D. Miss., January 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants has failed to adequately fund its Employees' Retirement Plan since at least plan year 2008. Singing River Health System owns and operates Singing River Hospital, a 435-bed hospital in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas L. Tynes Jr., Esq. TYNES LAW FIRM, PA P. O. Box 966 Pascagoula, MS 39568 Telephone: (228) 769-7736 Facsimile: (228) 769-8466 E-mail: monte@tyneslawfirm.com - and - Dustin N. Thomas, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC P. O. Drawer 1270, 525 Krebs Ave. Pascagoula, MS 39568-1270 Telephone: (228) 696-8881 Facsimile: (228) 696-8991 E-mail: dustin@dustinthomaslaw.com - and - Robert Keith Miller, Esq. MILLER & MILLER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 1269 Pascagoula, MS 39568 Telephone: (228) 762-8912 Facsimile: (228) 762-8913 E-mail: millerandmilleratty@gmail.com SLEEP TRAIN: Accused of Not Providing Disabled-Accessible Paths --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Levine and Veronica Guzman v. The Sleep Train, Inc.; Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.; Coastal Breeze Limousine, LLC; BGE Yuba, LLC; and Does 1-20, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00002-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal., December 31, 2014) involves the alleged denial of accessible paths of travel and proper and sufficient accessible parking facilities to the Plaintiffs in the Sleep Train Amphitheatre. Mr. Levine is a qualified disabled person. He has difficulties walking and standing due to multiple physical disabilities. Ms. Guzman is his fiancee. She often drives his vehicle and transports him. The Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors, and lessees of the businesses, property, buildings, parking lots, overflow parking facilities, paths of travel or portions thereof located at in Wheatland, California, and also known as the "Sleep Train Amphitheatre," a major concert and entertainment venue. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul L. Rein, Esq. Celia McGuinness, Esq. Catherine M. Cabalo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN 200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-5001 Facsimile: (510) 832-4787 E-mail: reinlawoffice@aol.com cmcguinness@reinlawoffice.com ccabalo@reinlawoffice.com SONY PICTURES: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Anastasio Garcia Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00014 (C.D. Cal., January 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to adequately safeguard its current and former employees' personal information including, names, home and email addresses, Social Security numbers, visa and passport numbers, account routing information, salary and retirement plan data, and health insurance and medical information. Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. is a multi-billion dollar movie and television production and distribution company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Tindall, Esq. Valerie Brender, Esq. RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2150 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 421-1800 Facsimile: (415) 421-1700 E-mail: stindall@rhdtlaw.com vbrender@rhdtlaw.com TD BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Collection of Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- John Koshgarian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A. and The Toronto-Dominion Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-10250 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), arises out of the unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with Defendants' assessment and collection of improper and excessive overdraft fees. TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank with its designated main office in the State of New Jersey. The Toronto-Dominion Bank is a Canadian-chartered bank. The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Batson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES P. BATSON 8 Bedford Rd. Katonah, NY 10536 Telephone: (914) 523-2278 E-mail: jamespbatsonlegal@gmail.com - and - Steve Owings, Esq. OWINGS LAW FIRM 1400 Brookwood Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 661-9999 E-mail: sowings@owingslawfirm.com TILE SHOP: Faces "Osorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adriel Osorio, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. The Tile Shop, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00015 (N.D. Ill., January 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Tile Shop, LLC owns and operates a tile retail stores located in New Mexico and Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Roberson-Young, Esq. Mark Anthony Bulgarelli, Esq. PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC 1 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2255 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 787-2717 E-mail: liza@progressivelaw.com markb@progressivelaw.com UNIBRIGHT FOODS: Recalls 48,139 Lbs. of Ready-To-Eat Sukiyaki Beef ------------------------------------------------------------------ Unibright Foods Inc., a Bell Gardens, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 48,139 pounds of frozen, ready-to-eat sukiyaki beef and gingered pork products that may be contaminated with metal extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. These products are subject to recall: -- 2.2 lb. packages of "MISHIMA SUKIYAKI BEEF" bearing the establishment number "EST.1163" inside the USDA mark of inspection and package ID number "15069." -- 1.7 lb. packages of "MISHIMA GINGERED PORK" bearing the establishment number "EST.1163" inside the USDA mark of inspection and package ID number "15059." The beef product was produced between Aug. 12, 2014, and Dec. 16, 2014. The gingered pork product was produced between Aug. 5, 2014, and Aug. 6, 2014. The products were shipped to institutions and retail outlets in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. The problem was reported to Unibright Foods, Inc. by a distributor who was notified by a restaurant in Illinois that they found a stainless steel wire in a sukiyaki beef product. FSIS and the company have received no reports of injury or illness from consumption of the product. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness from consumption of these products should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact Jacob Fernandez at (562) 806-3221. US POSTAL: Employees' Health Information Compromised in Hacking --------------------------------------------------------------- Nextgov reports that network intruders compromised health information on current and former U.S. Postal Service employees who filed for workers' compensation, USPS officials say. The files were accessed during a previously reported September cyber intrusion that netted the Social Security numbers of about 800,000 USPS employees. Details of the health data breach are just now being revealed for the first time. The agency does not face health data security fines or Health and Human Services Department breach notification violations, because the data was not part of an insurance plan. About 485,000 employees, former employees and retirees whose medical details were potentially exposed received a notification letter last month, USPS spokesman David Partenheimer said. The information potentially compromised was stored in "a file relating to injury compensation claims," USPS Chief Human Resources Officer Jeffrey Williamson said in the letter dated Dec. 10. "In addition, some of your medical information" associated with the claims may have been breached. Unlike many hacked organizations, the agency had a leg up in tracking down the current home addresses of victims because of its mission. "The Postal Service took steps to obtain current addresses for as many affected employees as possible through private contractors who used, among other sources, the Postal Service's own National Change of Address database," Mr. Partenheimer said. The medical data at issue consisted of injury diagnoses and procedure codes, as well as the physical location of the bodily harm, according to the letter, which Nextgov reviewed. "Codes concerning the anatomical location and the nature of the work related injury" were potentially compromised, Williamson said. The data also included codes for medical, surgical and diagnostic services that were used for billing. Victims are eligible for free credit monitoring, as are all USPS employees, who were notified of the general incident in November. Can USPS Employees Sue for Breach of Medical Privacy? About 4.9 million service members and their families affected by a 2011 Tricare military health insurance breach -- and, more recently, Sony employees victimized by a November hack -- filed class action lawsuits after their medical files were compromised. USPS officials said they have not seen evidence that the data stolen from the agency has been used for identity theft or other malicious purposes. Health records maintained by agencies, aside from federal benefit plans like Tricare, are not covered by the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. HIPAA mandates organizations use certain safeguards to keep electronic health information confidential and disclose breaches to victims within 60 days. USPS did not notify HHS of the breach because the agency is "excluded from reporting breaches under HIPAA," said Rachel Seeger, senior adviser for the HHS Office for Civil Rights. However, the compromised employee records are covered by federal privacy law. In the case of the Postal Service, "what's most interesting to me is that the Privacy Act of 1974 gives federal employees a right to sue as a class for data breaches," said Deborah Peel, director of Patient Privacy Rights and a practicing psychiatrist. Military personnel affected by the Tricare breach sued under the Privacy Act. The latest reported move in that litigation was a May 2014 decision by a D.C. federal judge to dismiss most of the charges. The court ruled that data loss alone, without evidence that the information was misused, did not merit damages. VERIFIED HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gonzalez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mundy Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Verified Health, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00011 (S.D. Cal., January 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Verified Health, LLC sells premium health supplements to customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. Gouya A. Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mike@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com VISION'S: "Christie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nichole Christie and Cindy Boyce, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vision's, Todd Laury, Individually and as Defendants Officer and/or Director of Vision's, Andrea Laury, Individually and as Officer and/or Director of Vision's, Randy McGill, Individually Officer and/or Director of Vision's, Case No. 4:15-cv-00001 (E.D. Ark., January 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club at 7900 Bicentennial Road, Maumelle, Arkansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Sanford, Esq. Joshua Lee West, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com west@sanfordlawfirm.com VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Court Has Yet to Appoint Lead Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------- VOXX International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that to date the Court has not entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff in the Securities class action lawsuit. "On July 8, 2014, a purported class action suit, styled Brian Ford vs. VOXX International Corporation, et al., was filed against us and two of our present executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York," the Company said. "The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements between May 15, 2013 and May 14, 2014 regarding our earnings guidance for fiscal 2014 and the anticipated future performance of our business. Plaintiff claims that these statements artificially inflated the price of our stock and that purchasers of our stock during the relevant period were damaged when the stock price later declined. Plaintiff seeks the award of unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged class, counsel fees and costs. We believe we have meritorious legal positions and defenses and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in this matter. On September 8, 2014, three members of the alleged class moved to be appointed the lead plaintiff in the action. To date, the Court has not entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff." WD-40 COMPANY: Defending Against David Wolf Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- WD-40 Company is defending a legal action filed in the Superior Court of California for San Diego County, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014. On February 25, 2014, a legal action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California for San Diego County (David Wolf v. WD-40 Company). Mr. Wolf's complaint seeks class action status and alleges that the Company violated California Penal Code Section 632.7 which prohibits the interception or reception and intentional recording of "a communication transmitted between two cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio telephone" without the consent of both parties to the communication. Mr. Wolf alleges that he called a toll free number for the Company from his cellular radio telephone and that his call was recorded by the Company without his consent in violation of the statute. The California Penal Code provides for a private right of action to persons who are injured by a violation of the statute. If entitled to recover, the injured plaintiff may recover the greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual damages sustained by the plaintiff. The Company asserts that the Company has not violated the California Penal Code and the Company intends to vigorously defend this action. At the present time, the Company is unable to estimate the extent of possible loss or a range of possible loss that could result from this legal proceeding. WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action for $14.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Wells Fargo agreed to pony up $14.5 million as part of a preliminary settlement agreement reached in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of millions of customers who alleged Wells Fargo Bank NA called them on their cellphones to collect credit card debt. Brought by lead plaintiff Lillian Franklin, the Wells Fargo settlement motion, if approved, will resolve her suit claiming the bank violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making automated calls to alleged debtors without their consent. She filed suit in August, claiming the financial institution called her multiple times on her cellphone in 2010, to collect an alleged debt on her credit card. The calls featured a pre-recorded message and were made without Franklin's consent, according to the lawsuit. According to the settlement terms, a settlement fund will be shared evenly between class members who submit claims. Currently, the class consists of 4 million members. The fund will established after consideration of attorneys' fees and administration costs, according to the motion. The case is Franklin v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, case number 3:14-cv- 02349, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. WELLS FARGO: Removes "Ligon" Class Suit to Florida District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Ligon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 14-008282-CI, was removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-03242-CEH-AEP to the proceeding. The action is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages, overtime and liquidated damages owed to the Plaintiff, and all other current and former employees of the Defendant that are similarly situated. The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel Bouzas, Esq. Gregory A. Owens, Esq. MIGUEL BOUZAS, PA 2203 N Louis Ave., Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 302-7253 Facsimile: (813) 302-7256 E-mail: Miguel@bouzaslaw.com greg@bouzasowens.com The Defendant is represented by: Christine R. Sensenig, Esq. SENSENIG LAW FIRM 2055 Wood Street, Suite 103 Sarasota, FL 34237 Telephone: (941) 953-2828 Facsimile: (941) 953-2044 E-mail: csensenig@senseniglawfirm.com - and - Frederick T. Smith, Esq. Jeffrey L. Glaser, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 1075 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3962 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile: (404) 892-7056 E-mail: fsmith@seyfarth.com jglaser@seyfarth.com - and - Nikhil N. Joshi, Esq. KUNKEL, MILLER & HAMENT 235 N Orange Ave., Suite 200 Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 365-6006 Facsimile: (941) 365-6209 E-mail: nikhil@kmhlaborlaw.com * High School Football Participants Rise Despite Concussion Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Stevens, writing for Charlotte Observer, reports that there are players throughout the United States who are choosing to play football in the face of studies linking concussions with long-term health complications. After a five-year decline in high school football participation across the country, the National Federation of State High School Associations reported an upturn in 2013, when almost 1.1 million boys and girls played the sport. Bob Gardner, the national federation's executive director, says the increase suggests that many parents have been reassured that the game can be played without a high risk of brain injury. Concussion management has been emphasized on the state and national levels. The federation has changed rules to reduce injuries. Every state in the U.S. has a law mandating concussion protocols. "With the precautions that are in place nationwide to address concussions in all high school sports, including football, we have maintained that the risk of injury is as low as it ever has been," Mr. Gardner said. "It isn't much of an increase in football participation, but it is an increase." The N.C. High School Athletic Association has seen some fluctuation in the number of players, but not the steady decrease that had been registered nationwide before 2013. The number of high school football players in the North Carolina in 2013 was an all-time high of 36,273. The number of players fell from 33,753 in 2006 to 29,5469 in 2007, but the number of players jumped more than 6,000 in 2009 and has been above 35,000 each year since. "I believe parents are weighing the benefits of participating against the chances of an injury and are deciding the benefits outweigh the concerns," said Davis Whitfield, the commissioner of the N.C. High School Athletic Association. "North Carolina has been in the forefront for years in keeping our children as safe as possible. That always is our No. 1 priority. Safety will always be the No. 1 priority." But there is still concern. Nationally, at least four high school football players died this season from head trauma -- including Isaiah Langston at Wake County's Rolesville High, in September. According to the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 17 players died from direct or indirect causes while playing high school football in 2013. Various former NFL players, including Kurt Warner, have expressed qualms about their children playing football. NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Terry Bradshaw said he expects to see fundamental changes to the game. The Illinois High School Association, which is similar to the N.C. High School Athletic Association, faces a class-action complaint that the association has been derelict in its duties to protect children. A slight uptick Gardner believes more high schoolers are playing because of changes made in recent years to help prevent concussions. For example, the national federation changed rules governing where players line up on kickoffs. A player whose helmet comes off during play must leave the game until it can be properly fitted and secured. Every state in the country now has legislation regulating the treatment of concussions on the interscholastic level. Many state associations, but not the NCHSAA, are limiting the amount of contact in practice. "With the rule changes and the protocols, playing football may be safer than it has ever been," Gardner said. But there are still serious risks. Langston, a Rolesville High linebacker, collapsed during pregame warmups on Sept. 26 and later died. According to the state medical examiner, he had been injured by a blow to the head in practice and had been held out of practice for two days. It is unclear whether a doctor had cleared the junior to return to football. One of the dangers from concussions is returning to physical activity too soon, before the brain has healed, following an injury. The brain is suspended in fluid within the skull. Physical force can shake the brain or cause it to strike the inside of the skull. The movement can disrupt the chemical reactions within the brain, which is a traumatic brain injury or a concussion. If the brain is shaken again while still healing, the results can be fatal. The accepted treatment for concussions is rest. Athletes are told not return to competition or practice until they no longer have any symptoms, which can include headaches, blurred vision, nausea, light sensitivity, confusion, memory loss or a wide assortment of indicators that the brain is not functioning at its normal level. The symptoms usually clear up within a few days. New rules after concussions Jaquan Waller, a player at Greenville J.H. Rose High School, died during a game in 2008 after being tackled. He had been concussed during practice earlier in the week. Matthew Gfeller of Winston- Salem R.J. Reynolds died that same year after being hit in a game. The two deaths prompted the state General Assembly to pass the Gfeller-Waller Concussion Awareness Act in 2011. The law requires every public middle school and high school in the state to educate players, coaches and parents about concussions; to develop an emergency action plan; and to implement a post- concussion protocol that must be followed before a player with a suspected injury can return to play or practice. But there is no penalty for violating the law. And the law is being violated. The N.C. Department of Public Instruction audited the state's high schools and found 13 of 115 districts were not in compliance. Most of the violations were for things such as failing to have an emergency action plan posted at every athletic venue, according to Que Tucker, a deputy assistant commissioner of the NCHSAA. "A key point is that a big majority of the state's systems were in compliance," said Burt Jenkins, a healthful living consultant for the department, which asked the NCHSAA to develop penalties for member high schools that are in violation of the law. Mr. Whitfield, the NCHSAA commissioner, said the proposed measures would include fines and other penalties for different infractions. Failing to have a parental signature on a form describing the dangers of concussions and concussion symptoms might carry one fine and not following return-to-action protocols would have another. If a school failed to get a parental signature, for instance, the player could be ruled ineligible and any game in which the player participated might be forfeited. "The biggest goal is to educate," Mr. Whitfield said. "The fines and penalties are to help get their attention." The NCHSAA has no authority over middle schools, which also are covered by the Gfeller-Waller Act. Recreation and youth league teams and prep teams at schools that are not a part of the NCHSAA are not covered by the state law. Thirteen states have laws that cover all youth sports, not just high school and middle school athletics. Colorado, for example, requires concussion education for all coaches who work with children from 11 to 18 years old. Kevin Guskiewicz, the head of the Matthew Gfeller Center, a sports-related traumatic brain injury research facility at UNC- Chapel Hill, said the legislature considered having the law cover all youth sports. "There were questions about how you enforce it," Mr. Guskiewicz said. "The key may be that you regulate groups that use public fields. Expanding the law might be the next step." Bob Cantu, a prominent concussion expert, says children should not be allowed to play any collision sport, including football, before the age of 14 because adolescent brains still are developing. Several states have limited the amount of contact allowed during a week of football practice. A legal challenge Joseph Siprut, a lawyer who brought a class action suit against the NCAA on the concussion issue, has filed a class action suit against the Illinois High School Association for not doing enough to protect high school football players. Mr. Siprut told CNN that his goal is to challenge every high school athletic association in the country. The 2013 increase in participation puts 1.1 million high school players on the football field, compared to about 68,000 NCAA football players. All of the football-related deaths during the last two years have involved high school players. None were reported in professional, college or youth football. The NCHSAA's Whitfield said the association will watch the Illinois lawsuit closely. "I believe that the NCHSAA has been a national leader in concussion awareness," Mr. Whitfield said. "Even before the Gfeller-Waller Act we had our Sports Medicine Advisory Committee working to develop policies and procedures." Mr. Bower is represented by Mathew R. Bainer and Molly A. DeSario of Scott Cole & Associates APC. Inter-Con is represented by Ronald W. Novotny, Robert R. Roginson and Amber M. Solano of Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo PLC. The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy G. Blood and Thomas J. O'Reardon II of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP; Joseph P. Guglielmo of Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law LLP; Daniel M. Cohen, Robert J. Cynkar and Pamela Gilbert of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP; and John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan PA. Capital One is represented by Mary C. Zinsner, S. Mohsin Reza and David N. Anthony of Troutman Sanders LLP and Aaron D. Van Oort, Amanda J. Rome and Peter Cunningham Magnuson of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. During oral arguments in October, Yury Kolesnikov of Bottini & Bottini Inc., representing Mr. Campion, urged the panel to revive the suit and overturn Judge Adler's rulings, arguing that Mr. Campion is represented by Francis A. Bottini Jr., Albert Y. Chang and Yury A. Kolesnikov of Bottini & Bottini Inc. Old Republic is represented by Jay N. Varon, Tammy H. Boggs and Marshall J. Hogan of Foley & Lardner LLP. The Florida Pediatric Society is represented by Carl E. Goldfarb, Stuart H. Singer and Lauren Fleischer Louis of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP and Benjamin D. Geffen of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. The state is represented by Stephanie A. Daniel, Albert J. Bowden III and Chesterfield Smith Jr. of Florida's Office of the Attorney General and Robert D.W. Landon III of Kenny Nachwalter PA. The plaintiffs are represented by TerriAnne Benedetto, David R. Buchanan, Christopher A. Seeger and Jonathan Shub of Seeger Weiss LLP; Steven Nathan Berk of Berk Law PLLC; Gordon M. Fauth Jr. of Litigation Law Group; J. Paul Gignac of Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP; Brian Kabateck of Kabateck Brown & Kellner LLP; Rosemary M. Rivas of Finkelstein Thompson LLP; Richard J. Burke and Jeffrey A. Leon of Quantum Legal LLC; and Jordan Sander Esensten of Wasserman Comden Casselman & Esensten LLP. Facebook is represented by Matthew Michael Brown, Michael Graham Rhodes and Whitty Somvichian of Cooley LLP and Kristin Linsley Myles and Jonathan H. Blavin of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP. ********* 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 * * *