/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150203.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 24 Headlines ABBOTT LABS: Faces False Ad Class Action Over Protein Drink ADOBE SYSTEMS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Tech Workers' Wages AFNI INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Car of Plaintiff in DWI Class Action Seized APPLE INC: 2011 Class Action Over MacBook Pro Graphics Expands ARCH SPECIALTY: Removes American Western Suit to C.D. California BAXALTA INCORPORATED: Baxter Paid $64MM to Settle Class Action BONEH FIDE: Faces "Garcia-Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BORGATA HOTEL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Parking Vouchers CAMBRIDGE, NY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action CANADA: Supreme Court Won't Hear Class Action Over Steel Plant CAR CARE: Faces "Marchan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiff Voluntary Dismisses Derivative Suit COMPASS GROUP: Faces "Macias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CONVERGENZ LLC: Faces "Jallow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CORNELL WIRELINE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CORRECT CARE: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over Eye Nutritional Supplement Fraud Claims DESTRIER CONSULTING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme DOLLAR TREE: Chancery Court Bars Bid for Interlocutory Appeal DORIS INC: Sock Commercial Prompts False Advertising Class Suit EBAY INC: Settles Recurring-Fee Class Action for $6.4 Million FAIRWAY CAPITAL: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims FAMILY DOLLAR: No Schedule Set for Adjudication of Claims FIVEFINGERS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement FLOWERS FOODS: Recalls Original English Muffins Due to Milk GASSEARCH DRILLING: Judge Curtails Claims in Gas Drilling Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Misled Investors About Safety, NYSTRS Claims GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Musician Royalty Class Action GEORGIA, USA: Bid to Junk Suit Over Same-Sex Marriage Ban Denied GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act GOODYEAR TIRE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Heating Hose Suit GRILL-PHORIA LLC: Recalls Beef Jerky Treats Due to Salmonella HAMCHOROM INC: Recalls HAITAI Tayo & Gyeran Crackers HILTON GRAND: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Claims J & S SHEET: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime KMART CORP: Scott & Scott Comments on Data Breach Class Action LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Retirees Set to Receive Class Action Notice LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports MANORCARE: Seeks Certification of Hepatitis C Class Action MASSAGE ENVY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices METROPOLITAN LIFE: Accused of Misrepresentation in New York MICHAEL'S STORES: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks MICROSOFT CORP: September 2015 Trial in British Columbia Case MICROSOFT CORP: Argument in US Cell Phone Case Appeal in May 2015 MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active MR. PAPA'S: Faces "Delgado-Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS: Has Harassed Black Worker, Suit Claims O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Graham" Suit Says PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Faces Class Action Over Credit Reports PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Health Coverage PEPSICO INC: Judge Casts Doubt on Cancer-Warning Class Action PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says PROJECT HEALTHY: Recalls Chocolate & Vanilla Protein Powder PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE: Faces Class Alleging FMLA Violations QUEBEC, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Liquor Monopoly ROCK CREEK: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Anatabloc Supplement RV TRANSPORT: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SAFWAY SERVICES: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act SAKS FIFTH: Sued for Retaliating Against Then-Pregnant Employee SAQ: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Price Mark-Ups SCHNUCK MARKETS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Data Breach Suit SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Trial Begins in Suit Alleging Forced Labor SINGING RIVER: Judge Delays Pension Plan Termination for 90 Days STATE FARM: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action STONE MOUNTAIN: Recalls 8oz. Packs Pecanettes Due to Salmonella SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Heath Hill" Suit Over Viptera Corn SYNGENTA CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over GMO Corn Seed SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Michael Hill" Suit Over Contaminated Corn TD BANK: Sued Over Improper Collection of Overdraft Fees TOYOTA MOTOR: Urges Jury to Decide on Evidence in Crash Suit TPG CAPITAL: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settles False Advertising Claims for $40MM UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Charges Fictitious LAX Airport Fees, Suit Says UNITED STATES: Judge Strikes Down Minimum Wage Regulation UNITY DISPOSAL: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Faces "Alba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA: Hockey Team Scraps Season Amid Class Action VECTOR TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages WALGREEN CO: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Claims WALMART STORES: Faces False Ad Class Suit Over Arm & Hammer Sale WARNER MUSIC: Court Awards $2 Million to Musicians' Attorneys WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in Washington Over Foreclosure WET SEAL: Faces Class Action Over Store Closures ********* ABBOTT LABS: Faces False Ad Class Action Over Protein Drink ----------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 13 against a protein drink manufacturer alleged the company falsely advertised the amount of protein in its products. Sara Hawes and Clarice Chavira filed the lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories, alleging the amount of protein in Abbott's EAS Myoplex Original and EAS AdvantEdge Carb Control ready-to-drink protein products didn't contain the amount of protein that was advertised on their labels. Abbott allegedly reduced the protein content in its products in order to reduce costs. The EAS Myoplex Original label advertises 42 grams of protein per serving, but lab tests allegedly found the product only contains 38.085 grams of protein. Likewise, the EAS AdvantEdge Carb Control product states it contains 17 grams of protein per serving, but it allegedly contains 14.164 grams. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $5 million in damages and believe there could be tens of thousands of class members. Ms. Hawes and Ms. Chavira are represented by Joseph J. Siprut and Gregory W. Jones of Siprut, PC; Nick Suci III of Barbat, Mansour & Suciu, PLLC; and Tina Wolfson and Bradley King of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois-Eastern Division case number 1:15-cv-00308 ADOBE SYSTEMS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Tech Workers' Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel have agreed to settle a high-stakes dispute over tech workers' wages, attorneys said on January 13. Software engineers, on behalf of an estimated class of 64,000, sued the tech giants, plus Intuit and Walt Disney subsidiaries LucasFilm and Pixar, in 2010, over illegal "no cold-call agreements" that restricted or eliminated competition for high- tech employees, which "disrupted the normal price-setting mechanism that apply in the labor setting." The poaching ban, workers claimed, maintained internal salary structures at the companies from 2005 to 2009, and involved "gentleman's agreements" via CEO-to-CEO emails between the late Steve Jobs and other leading Silicon Valley CEOs. Five cases underlying the consolidated action were filed in California Superior Court and removed to Federal Court. In August 2014, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected workers' request for preliminary approval of a $325 million settlement. Koh found the offer too low: outside "the range of reasonableness." Koh also ruled that although "ample evidence" showed an overarching conspiracy between the defendants, the proposed settlement was "proportionally lower" per class member than that of a separate $20 million settlement with Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit, in 2013. Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel called Koh's rejection of the proposed settlement a "clear legal error," in September 2014. Google attorney Robert Van Nest, of Keker & Van Nest, said Koh's "formulaic approach" in deciding that the offer was short by 16 percent went against precedent that values negotiation and mediation over benchmarking. The tech companies called on the 9th Circuit to use the case as an opportunity to set "the proper standard for preliminary approval of class settlements," claiming that Koh potentially doomed the tech employees to "the very real chance that they and the absent class members will receive nothing" by rejecting the deal -- the highest ever in an employment antitrust case. Koh released separate emails, one by a Google employee and shareholder, in response to the companies' petition. "Real choices and opportunities were taken away from these employees due to lack of recruiting among the companies," the worker said. "No amount of money can fix that now." The lawsuits followed a Justice Department investigation into the seven companies' employment and recruitment practices, in 2009 and 2010. The DOJ filed a suit against the companies in 2010, alleging they agreed to restrict the mobility of their skilled employees. The companies settled with the government, without admitting wrongdoing, and agreed not to enforce any agreement that kept them from soliciting, cold calling or competing for employees from one another. Attorney Donald Falk, with Mayer Brown, announced the tech quartet's unspecified settlement to the 9th Circuit on Jan. 13. "The parties have reached a new settlement agreement that is subject to district court approval," Falk wrote. "The plaintiffs imminently are expected to file a motion for preliminary approval with the district court. After that filing, petitioners will make a submission to this court regarding the mandamus proceeding." AFNI INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Shari L. Kavalin, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AFNI, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 0:15-cv-60143-WJZ (S.D. Fla., January 23, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Peerce Howard, Esq. John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. One Tampa City Center, 7th Floor 201 North Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 221-6590 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: bhoward@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Car of Plaintiff in DWI Class Action Seized ------------------------------------------------------------ Laura Thoren, writing for KOAT Albuquerque, reports that an Albuquerque attorney suing the city over its DWI vehicle seizures policy just had his car seized after he was arrested on a DWI charge. Attorney Colin Hunter said the city's policy of seizing the cars of suspected drunken drivers before they're convicted is unconstitutional. He called it policing for profit. "It pays the salaries of the attorneys, the salaries of the people who deal with forfeiture, buys new vehicles for the people who administer this program," Mr. Hunter said in a February 2014 interview with Action 7 News. Mr. Hunter was arrested after police said he was driving drunk. His Nissan sports car was seized. Sheriff's deputies said it was not a normal DWI stop because the car had been in an accident and the airbags were deployed. Deputies also said they found eight open containers in the car. The official report said Hunter refused a field sobriety test and instead told deputies, "Just take me to jail." It wasn't MR. Hunter's first DWI arrest. He's been arrested twice before for DWI. He was convicted in one of those cases, and because of that history, his sports car was seized after last month's arrest. He's since pleaded guilty to DWI. No word if he'll eventually get his car back. Mr. Hunter's class action lawsuit against the city policy is still pending. APPLE INC: 2011 Class Action Over MacBook Pro Graphics Expands -------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Hughes, writing for Apple Insider, reports that members of the 2011 MacBook Pro graphics failure class-action lawsuit were updated on the latest developments in the case, which has expanded to include multiple states and lodges new complaints against Apple, accusing the company of deliberately concealing problems. In an email sent out to members of the suit, the law firm of Whitfield, Bryson & Mason LLP revealed that its complaint now includes California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Puerto Rico, and Vermont. The complaint has also been updated to accuse Apple of taking steps to hide the problems from consumers. "Specifically, we allege that between early- and late-2011, Apple released a software update that dramatically reduced the graphical performance of the GPUs in order to prevent them from reaching temperatures that would cause the GPUs to effectively self destruct," the note reads. The law firm said that some members of the class-action suit have volunteered their faulty MacBook Pros for testing, and a computer hardware expert has been hired to perform tests on the hardware. The complainants hope to use this information to explain the technical side of the case to the court, and offer ways that Apple could have fixed the alleged problems. It's expected that Apple will file a motion to dismiss the case on Jan. 29, and Whitfield, Bryson & Mason plan to respond to that motion with their own filing on behalf of the class on March 5. The case is expected to be heard before Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California in early April. The 2011 MacBook Pro graphics case is not to be confused with a separate lawsuit over allegedly defective logic boards which was recently dismissed by a California judge. The graphics-related issues found in some 2011 MacBook Pro models led to the class-action lawsuit being filed last October, seeking compensation for apparent hardware failures experienced by customers. Initially, the lawsuit covered only residents of California and Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of plaintiffs Zachary Book, Donald Cowart, and John Manners. The lawsuit alleges that Apple failed to reimburse owners for out-of-pocket repairs that could cost anywhere from $350 to $600. Some owners of those devices have vocally complained for years that they have experienced graphical distortions and system crashes. Complaints from out-of-warranty MacBook Pro owners first began to gain steam in early 2013. People familiar with Apple's internal repair network informed AppleInsider in August that the company had no immediate plans to initiate a replacement program for early-2011 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro models suffering from systematic crashes and graphics failures. The issues are seemingly related to the laptops' discrete AMD-built graphics cards. The GPU issue might present itself onscreen as visual artifacts, banding or a blank screen. What triggers the failure is unknown, though a common thread seems to be graphics-intensive operations like watching high-definition videos and performing processor- intensive operations in digital media programs. ARCH SPECIALTY: Removes American Western Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled American Western Door & Trim v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. RIC1412316, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00153-BRO-SP to the proceeding. The case is brought on behalf of builders and contractors or sub- contractors that have purchased policies of insurance from Arch to be insured and indemnified from third party claims of construction defects or similar claims of liability in connection with work done. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of bad faith conduct by, among other things, denying defense following tender. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Terry Robert Bailey, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP Engine Company No 28 Building 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com jhh@kbklawyers.com trb@kbklawyers.com - and - Aaron Bernard Booth, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AARON B. BOOTH 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2210 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 228-0330 Facsimile: (213) 489-2204 E-mail: abooth@aaronbooth.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory J. Newman, Esq. Hee Sung Yoon, Esq. SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-6538 Telephone: (310) 445-0800 Facsimile: (310) 473-2525 E-mail: gnewman@selmanbreitman.com Hyoon@selmanbreitman.com BAXALTA INCORPORATED: Baxter Paid $64MM to Settle Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- According to an exhibit to Baxalta Incorporated's Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015, Baxter International Inc. is a defendant, along with others, in a number of lawsuits combined for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma- derived therapies since 2003. Some of the complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief and some cases demand treble damages. In January 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss certain federal claims brought by indirect purchasers and returned the remaining indirect purchaser claims to the court of original jurisdiction (U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California) in August 2012. The indirect purchaser complaint was amended to remove class action allegations in May 2013. The Company settled with the direct purchaser plaintiffs for $64 million, which was paid during the first quarter of 2014, and final court approval of the settlement was obtained in April 2014. As of December 31, 2013, the Company has a litigation reserve to cover the settlement. BONEH FIDE: Faces "Garcia-Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Garcia-Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Boneh Fide Building Service, Inc., and Karina Meza, Case No. 1:15-cv-00726 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com BORGATA HOTEL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Parking Vouchers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Bricketto and Natalie Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report that Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa has been hit with a putative class action from reward members who claim the Atlantic City, New Jersey, casino violated the state Consumer Fraud Act by providing them false and misleading parking vouchers. Two New Jersey residents who are members of Borgata's loyalty program contended in a Jan. 12 complaint in Bergen County Superior Court that one such voucher states "Unlimited Free Parking" for a particular month, but the casino won't allow users to redeem the voucher more than once in a single month. "The voucher is therefore 'limited' and not 'unlimited' as it claims," the complaint said. In another example of alleged deception, Borgata provided consumers with what seems like two parking vouchers on a single sheet that were separated by perforations, which each voucher stating "Free Parking One Time Per Month," according to the complaint. But the use of one of the connected vouchers voids the other, and the casino won't allow patrons to use both, the complaint said. "[T]he Borgata has distributed these and other like false, misleading and deceptive parking vouchers to hundreds or thousands of its 'reward members' on a monthly basis," the complaint said. "Consequently, patrons of the Borgata and routinely and uniformly have been injured and continue to be injured by Borgata's fraudulent and unlawful trade practices." The named plaintiffs -- Ravi Motwani of Westfield, New Jersey, and Upper Saddle River, New Jersey-resident Barry Cassell -- hope to represent a class of those who received the disputed parking vouchers from Borgata within the past six years and attempted to use them. The suit claimed Borgata not only violated the CFA but also the Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act and further accused the casino of common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. "The Borgata knew or should have known that its representations that reward members would be permitted to park for free at the Borgata were material to plaintiffs, and were false when made," the complaint said. "Plaintiffs relied upon these misrepresentations to their detriments and were injured by driving to Atlantic City and visiting the Borgata, rather than any of the many other casino resorts based upon the Borgata's claim that they could come and go as they pleased without having to incur the expense of paying for parking." Borgata has been viewed as a bright spot for Atlantic City amid a rash of casino closures. In September, MGM Resorts International got the greenlight from New Jersey gambling regulators to take back its 50 percent stake in the casino after previously giving it up over corruption concerns. In a unanimous vote, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission approved MGM to retake control of a 50 percent ownership interest in the Borgata that the casino company had previously put into trust in 2010 after regulators raised concerns about the suitability of a Macau joint venture partner. Motwani and Cassell are represented by Bruce H. Nagel of Nagel Rice LLP. Counsel information for Borgata was not immediately available. The case is Motwani et al v. Marina District Development Company, LLC d/b/a Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa, case number L-276-15 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. CAMBRIDGE, NY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Jan. 16 disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of the City of Cambridge Retirement System against Altisource Asset Management Corporation and certain of the executive officers and directors of the Company. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands, asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in AAMC common stock during the period of April 19, 2013 to January 12, 2015, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants misrepresented and/or concealed the Company's relationship with, and conflicted transactions with, a group of related companies, including Ocwen Financial Corporation, all of which were founded by Defendant William Erbey. On December 22, 2014, the Company announced that as part of the terms of a settlement that Ocwen had reached with the New York Department of Financial Services, Defendant Erbey would be stepping down as chairman of AAMC's board and from his positions at each of the related companies. As part of its investigation, the New York DFS indicated that it had uncovered "serious conflicts of interest between the Related Companies." As a result of this announcement, AAMC's stock price declined over 23% from a closing price of $465.30 per share on December 19, 2014 to close at $356.50 per share on December 22, 2014, on high trading volume. Then, on January 13, 2015, the California Department of Business Oversight announced that it was seeking to revoke Ocwen's license to operate in the state. On this news, the price of AAMC's stock fell over 33% from a closing price of $321.81 per share on January 12, 2015 to close at $214.27 per share on January 13, 2015, on high trading volume. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from January 16, 2015. Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is March 17, 2015. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at avi@blbglaw.com Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide. CANADA: Supreme Court Won't Hear Class Action Over Steel Plant -------------------------------------------------------------- Cape Breton Post reports that Cape Breton residents who launched a class-action lawsuit claiming the operation of the Sydney Steel plant and coke ovens exposed them to contaminants will not have their case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned the certification of a class-action lawsuit in December 2013. The appeal court decision came after lawyers for the provincial and federal governments argued that the provincial Supreme Court judge erred in certifying the case because there are too many differences in the individual cases for the matter to be heard as a class-action lawsuit. The appeal court judges agreed, finding that there was too much variance in the issues affecting the class members and that a class-action suit was not the best way to proceed. The original lawsuit was filed by local residents Neila MacQueen, Joe Petitpas, Ann Ross and Iris Crawford, who are seeking compensation and a medical monitoring fund for contamination resulting from the operation of the steel plant between 1967 and 2000. As is customary, the Supreme Court did not give reasons for its decision not to hear the case. It was dismissed with costs. CAR CARE: Faces "Marchan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Jose Marchan, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Car Care Center V LLC and Ahmed Chergui, Case No. 1:15-cv-00722 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants owns and operate an auto body repair and maintenance services company. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Dice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation, Scot Wingo, David Spitz, and John Baule, Case No. 1:15-cv-00506 (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2015), 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. ChannelAdvisor Corporation is a Delaware corporation that provides cloud-based e-commerce solutions that enable retailers and manufacturers to increase global sales. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiff Voluntary Dismisses Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- This notice relates to a proposed voluntary dismissal of a shareholder derivative action and is being given pursuant to an order of The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The purpose of the notice is to advise Chesapeake shareholders that plaintiff, M. Lee Arnold, in the action wishes to voluntarily dismiss the case. Additional information on the action and right to intervene can be found below. On September 6, 2011, M. Lee Arnold filed a purported shareholder derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Arnold v. McClendon et al., Case No. CIV-11- 986, against members of the Company's board of directors (the "Derivative Action"). The Derivative Action alleges a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to exercise oversight responsibilities against all defendants for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with disclosures and alleged failures to disclose information in the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's July 2008 common stock offering, which was the subject of an earlier-filed securities class action, United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al., Case No. CIV-09-1114 (the "Securities Class Action"). Because the disclosure claims in the Securities Class Action were based on the same essential facts and issues, the parties to the Derivative Action agreed to stay proceedings pending resolution of the Securities Class Action. On February 13, 2013, the Securities Class Action was dismissed on summary judgment, and on August 8, 2014 the dismissal of the Securities Class Action was affirmed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In light of the dismissal of the Securities Class Action, Plaintiff has sought leave to voluntarily dismiss the Derivative Action. On November 20, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation Voluntarily Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice. This notice of the proposed voluntary dismissal of the Derivative Action will be posted in the Investor Relations section of Chesapeake's website for two weeks. Chesapeake shareholders are hereby advised: Chesapeake shareholders may intervene and continue prosecution of the Derivative Action. Any shareholder who wishes to intervene must file a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, 200 NW 4th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73102, not later than February 9, 2015. Any motion to intervene must be filed in writing, and must include: (i) the caption of the Derivative Action; (ii) the name of the shareholder; (iii) proof or certification of the date the intervening shareholder purchased Chesapeake stock, and that the intervening shareholder has held its shares continuously since the date of purchase; and (iv) a statement of the basis for the intervention. COMPASS GROUP: Faces "Macias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Macias, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Compass Group USA, Inc., CVS, Inc. and Robert W. Carqueville, Case No. 1:15-cv-00721 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a foodservice management and support services company in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com CONVERGENZ LLC: Faces "Jallow" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Latonya Jallow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergenz, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00219 (S.D. Tex., January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Convergenz, LLC is a staffing company with its principal office located at 8260 Greensboro Dr. Ste. 575, McLean, Virginia 22102. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES LLP 711 W Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com CORNELL WIRELINE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cornell Wireline Services, LLC d/b/a CWES, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00050 (W.D. Tex., January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Cornell Wireline Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that provides oil and gas well perforation services to customers in the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Rachael Rustmann, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C. 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, Texas 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 Facsimile: (806) 398-9095 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com rachael@youngfirm.com CORRECT CARE: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Janetta Webster Moore, Susan Jane Craun, Nancy Maria Broadhurst, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00202 (D. Md., January 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, as well as attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Correct Care Solutions, LLC owns and operates a correctional healthcare company within the State of Maryland, Kansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq. STEIN SPERLING BENNETT DE JONG DRISCOLL AND GREENFEIG PC 25 W Middle Ln Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (301) 340-2020 Facsimile: (301) 354-8126 E-mail: mlombardo@steinsperling.com CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over Eye Nutritional Supplement Fraud Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Bailey & Glasser LLP on Jan. 15 disclosed that two consumers with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a progressive eye disease that accounts for more than half of all blindness in America, claim that CVS makes false claims about the effectiveness of its Advanced Eye Health product. Dr. Larry Meredith and David Gumner, the plaintiffs in a California state court class action, say CVS's claims that its Advanced Eye Health supplement is comparable to a formula that the National Institutes of Health found effective in slowing AMD's progression are false and deceptive. Two NIH Age Related Eye Disease Studies ("AREDS") found a specific formula of nutritional supplements effective in slowing AMD's progression. The second study, called AREDS2, found two effective substitutes for betacarotene, an AREDS formula ingredient that may increase cancer risk for smokers. CVS markets its Advanced Eye Health supplement by calling it "comparable to" the AREDS2 formula, but it only contains ingredients that the NIH found ineffective at slowing the progression of AMD (omega-3 fatty acids), and the two ingredients that NIH said could substitute for betacarotene. NIH's study did not find that these two substitute ingredients have any independent effect on AMD. In 2004, about 10 million Americans had intermediate or advanced AMD, and scientists expect this number to double in the next 20 years. Although the CVS product does not contain the ingredients NIH found effective in fighting AMD, CVS places its Advanced Eye Health supplement next to Bausch+Lomb's PreserVision supplements, that do contain the AREDS2 formula. This placement of the CVS product further deceives consumers, by making the two products appear interchangeable, but for the CVS product's ostensibly lower price. John Roddy and Elizabeth Ryan of Bailey & Glasser's Boston office represent Dr. Meredith and Mr. Gumner. They have allied with Amanda Howell of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Stephen Gardner, Marc Stanley, Martin Woodward, and Matthew Zevin, of the Stanley Law Group, as co-counsel. Founded by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in 1999 in Charleston, West Virginia, Bailey & Glasser LLP -- http://www.baileyandglasser.com-- has grown to include nearly 50 lawyers, with offices in seven states and the District of Columbia. The firm's complex litigation practice focuses on high- stakes commercial litigation; class actions for consumers, insureds, investors, and retirement plan participants; catastrophic injury and defective product cases; antitrust; and whistleblower lawsuits. The firm has extensive experience in energy law, and litigates energy cases in trial courts, bankruptcy courts, regulatory agencies, and appellate courts. It has a major corporate practice, and handles business matters ranging from assisting Chinese investors in acquiring US assets, to IPOs, to the negotiation and execution of billions of dollars in commercial transactions. DESTRIER CONSULTING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jayla Carter, Stephen Albert, Nicholas Howells, Tonia Lewis, Preston Mack and all others similarly-situated v. Destrier Consulting Service LLC d/b/a Fresh Student a Florida limited liability company and Casey Cochran, Case No. 9:15-cv-80074 (S.D. Fla., January 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cathleen Ann Scott, Esq. CATHLEEN A. SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 250 South Central Boulevard Jupiter Gardens Suite 104 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 653-0008 Facsimile: 653-0020 E-mail: CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ Drew Foster, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that an appeals court judge from the Tri-Cities is suing Dish Network in federal court, launching a class-action lawsuit that claims the national satellite TV provider is deceptive in its pricing. Judge George Fearing's lawsuit also names two companies that work with Dish-Easy Connect, of Delaware and Kentucky, and Columbia Basin Satellite Company, headquartered in Kennewick. The number of plaintiffs could climb into the hundreds, and damages being sought could total millions, according to court documents. Two matters are at the heart of the lawsuit -- that Dish Network and the other companies are "willfully operating a 'bait and switch' sales scheme" where actual services cost more than customers had originally been quoted, and that telephone conversations between consumers and employees are unlawfully recorded without consumers' consent. The recorded telephone calls are a violation of a consumer's right to privacy and the state's criminal code, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit asks that damages include three times the price difference between the cost of services quoted and the cost of services as presented in the in-person contract for each affected customer. Plaintiffs also are seeking $100 for each time phone conversations were improperly recorded by the defendants. The lawsuit would cover Washington consumers who after Nov. 1, 2012, were quoted and agreed to pay a price for satellite television at the time the services were ordered that was lower than the price presented in a written contract at the time of installation. Also included are Washington consumers who at any time after Nov. 1, 2012, had a telephone conversation with the defendants that was recorded without the consumer's knowledge or consent. "Our hope, and the reason you bring a class action, is you want to see them cease to behave in the way (that's been) complained about," said Richland attorney Douglas McKinley Jr., who is representing Judge Fearing. "There may be a huge number of people who have been harmed in a small way," Mr. McKinley added. Dish has faced similar lawsuits in recent years. In April, the state Attorney General's office ordered Dish to refund about $2 million to Washington customers and provide additional benefits to consumers that could total $3 million, including a $10 credit, two free pay-per-view movies or two months of free access to the Epix movie channel. The Attorney General's office found that Dish had been charging its Washington customers an unlawful monthly line-item surcharge beginning in May 2012, netting the company more than $2 million. The state determined that "hundreds of thousands of Washington consumers were illegally charged a dollar per month for up to eight months." In July 2009, Dish Network was ordered to pay nearly $6 million across 46 states to settle allegations that it and third-party retailers engaged in deceptive and unfair sales practices. The company denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to terms that limited how it marketed services and to provide restitution or relief to eligible consumers. The states had accused Dish of, among other things, making telemarketing calls in violation of Do Not Call Registry rules, representing to consumers that Dish isn't responsible for the conduct of its third-party retailers and installers, failing to disclose all terms and conditions of its customer agreements and charging customer credit cards and debiting bank accounts without providing adequate notice and obtaining appropriate authorization. "This is not the first time this has happened in the state of Washington," Mr. McKinley said. The class-action lawsuit was filed in December in Benton County Superior Court, but was moved to federal court after an attorney representing Dish Network filed a notice of removal last week. The notice of removal hinges on three areas of the federal Class Action Fairness Act -- that the punitive class has at least 100 members, that at least one member of the class could reside in a state different from the location of the defendant, and that the total damages in question exceeds $5 million. Easy Connect schedules installations on behalf of Dish, and Columbia Basin Satellite installs the equipment. The suit includes an unnamed Easy Connect employee who took Judge Fearing's order over the phone and presumably knew the conversation was being recorded, according to the lawsuit. And it includes another unnamed employee at Easy Connect who recorded the conversation. Conor Adriance is listed in court documents as the sales manager at Easy Connect who allegedly knew of conversations being recorded. And an unnamed worker with Columbia Basin Satellite allegedly knew the conversations were being recorded. Eric Gillett of the Seattle law firm Preg, O'Donnell and Gillett is representing Dish Network. Easy Connect is represented by Cheryl Rani Guttenberg Adamson of the Kennewick law firm Rettig Osborne Forgette. Columbia Basin Satellite Company is represented by Eric Butterworth of the Butterworth Law Office in Kennewick. Calls to Butterworth, Gillett and Adamson were not returned. Anyone who wants to join the class-action case can call McKinley at 509-628-0809 or email doug@mckinleylaw.com DOLLAR TREE: Chancery Court Bars Bid for Interlocutory Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015, that Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and Merger Sub are named as defendants in three putative class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9985 CB., brought by purported Family Dollar shareholders challenging the proposed merger, seeking, among other things, to enjoin consummation of the Acquisition. The parties conducted document discovery relating to the motion for a preliminary injunction and a hearing was held on December 5, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion and order denying plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. The plaintiffs sought from the Court of Chancery certification of an interlocutory appeal of that order to the Delaware Supreme Court, but on January 2, 2015, the Court of Chancery denied that request. No schedule has yet been set for the adjudication of the plaintiffs' remaining claims for relief. If the plaintiffs are successful in their remaining claims, there could be an adverse effect on Dollar Tree and Family Dollar's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. DORIS INC: Sock Commercial Prompts False Advertising Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 12 against a maker of speciality socks alleged the company falsely advertised the benefits of purchasing its product -- and part of that advertising was a commercial featuring a woman experiencing "orgasmic" pleasure. Meng Wang filed the lawsuit against Doris, Inc. and Gildan Activewear in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. EBAY INC: Settles Recurring-Fee Class Action for $6.4 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that EBay Inc. agreed to pay $6.4 million on Jan. 15 in California federal court to settle a fraud and breach of contract class action brought by more than a million sellers alleging the massive auction website charged them hidden, recurring listing fees. The proposed settlement would let eBay out of a lawsuit over more than $50 million in "Good 'Til Canceled" fees, putting the end in sight after more than three years of litigation. The deal would put $4.5 million in the hands of class members and $1.6 million to class counsel, according to the motion. The class includes users behind nearly 1.2 million accounts, though the number of actual users represented by those accounts was unclear as one person could have multiple accounts. The proposed settlement doesn't provide for a claims process and says most sellers will receive an automatic credit to their accounts. Plaintiff Richard Noll filed suit in September 2011, saying eBay suggested that the Good 'Til Canceled listings, which automatically renew every 30 days until the seller cancels the listing or the item is sold, came "at no extra cost" when fees were actually charged monthly. About a year later, Rhythm Motor Sports LLC filed a separate suit, and the cases were ultimately consolidated. The lawsuit alleged breach of contract, unfair competition, false advertising, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment and fraud. Over the course of the litigation, eBay won the dismissal of two of the plaintiffs' complaints, but the court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend except as to claims involving insertion fees during times when eBay's fee schedules explicitly said they those fees would be charged every 30-day period. During the discovery process, eBay produced more than 90,000 pages of documents and 2 gigabytes of data, according to the motion. The settlement fund would be nonreversionary, with uncashed or returned checks split between the nonprofits National Cyber- Forensics & Training Alliance and the National Consumer Law Center. The class is represented by Keith R. Verges -- keith.verges@figdav.com -- Parker D. Young -- parker.young@figdav.com -- and Raymond E. Walker of Figari & Davenport LLP, Vera Brooks of Thompson & Brooks and Shawn T. Leuthold. EBay is represented by John C. Dwyer, Whitty Somvichian and Candace Jackman -- cjackman@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP. The case is Noll et al. v. eBay Inc. et al., case number 5:11-cv- 04585, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. FAIRWAY CAPITAL: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Matlock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fairway Capital Recovery, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00521 (C.D. Cal., January 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' illegal action of willfully employing and causing to be employed certain recording equipment in order to record to the telephone conversations of the Plaintiff without consent, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. Fairway Capital Recovery, LLC is a consumer debt collection agency doing business within the State of Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com FAMILY DOLLAR: No Schedule Set for Adjudication of Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015, that no schedule has yet been set for the adjudication of the plaintiffs' remaining claims for relief in the three putative class action lawsuits that have been filed against Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and merger sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery. FIVEFINGERS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------- Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports that a federal judge has approved a proposed agreement to settle a class action against a footwear manufacturer. Consumers who purchased FiveFingers "barefoot" footwear alleged that the manufacturer misrepresented in its advertising and marketing that the footwear provides certain health benefits to wearers. The plaintiff purchasers moved for approval of the proposed settlement agreement. FLOWERS FOODS: Recalls Original English Muffins Due to Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods (NYSE: FLO) is voluntarily recalling Market Basket Fork Split 6 count Original English Muffins with the UPC code 0 49705 82137 4 and best by dates of November 27, 2014 through February 6, 2015 because they contain undeclared milk. People who have allergies to dairy products run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recalled product was distributed through Market Basket Supermarkets in Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire. The recall was initiated after Flowers discovered that product containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk. Flowers has alerted Market Basket, which has removed this product from its stores. Flowers is recovering the product involved to ensure the continued safety of those consumers who may be impacted by this issue. The recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The company also has reported the recall to FARE (Food Allergy Research & Education). Consumers who have purchased Market Basket Fork Split 6 count Original English Muffins with the UPC and dates noted are urged to return it to a Market Basket Supermarket for product replacement or refund. No other Market Basket brand products are included in this recall. Consumers with questions may call Flowers' Consumer Relations Center at 1-866-245-8921. The center is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern. Consumers also may contact the center via e-mail by visiting the Contact Us page at www.flowersfoods.com. Photo of the Recalled Products available at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432565.htm GASSEARCH DRILLING: Judge Curtails Claims in Gas Drilling Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Journal reports that a federal judge has significantly curtailed the claims in a suit over allegations oil and gas drilling led to the contamination of a township's water supply in Susquehanna County, Pa. U.S. District Judge John Jones III dismissed defendant GasSearch Drilling Services from the case and he narrowed the claims against Cabot Oil & Gas to only a private nuisance claim and a negligence claim. The case was filed in 2009 when 44 plaintiffs sued the two natural-gas drilling companies to recover damages for property damage from drilling operations in Dimock Township, Pa. A number of the plaintiffs settled, leaving 10 plaintiffs still in the case. GENERAL MOTORS: Misled Investors About Safety, NYSTRS Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Ridley, writing for MLive, reports that General Motors is accused of misleading investors about safety and financial liabilities connected to potentially life-threatening ignition switch defects that led to widespread recalls, according to a new class action complaint. The complaint was filed Jan. 15, in Flint U.S. District Court by The New York State Teachers' Retirement System on behalf of anyone who purchased or acquired GM common stock between November 2010 and July 2014. The complaint alleges GM made a series of "material misstatements and omissions" about the company's liabilities, internal controls and commitment to customer safety. Nearly 2.6 million vehicles have been recalled by the company after it was discovered ignition switch defects could cause the vehicles to shut down on their own, even when traveling at high speeds. The defects have been linked to at least 45 deaths. "The shutdown occurred even at highway speed, and power brakes and power steering would no longer function, making the cars dangerously unsafe to control," the complaint alleges. Attorney Salvatore Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- of New York-based Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, which was appointed as the lead attorney in the case, filed the Jan. 15 complaint. He declined to comment on the new complaint. The retirement system initially filed its complaint against GM in March 2014. However, the Jan. 15 new complaint combines allegations from other plaintiffs, including the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Menorah Mivtachim Insurance. The plaintiffs allege when GM disclosed the problems with ignition switches to the government in February 2014, years after it learned of the potentially-dangerous defect, its stock price dropped more than 3 percent. The drop allegedly caused plaintiffs to lose millions of dollars, according to court records. "GM knew of or recklessly disregarded dangerous safety defects in the ignition switches contained in millions of its cars that should have led to a recall many years earlier," the complaint alleges. General Motors has not yet filed a response to the complaint, but spokesman James Cain said the company would file a motion seeking to dismiss the case. GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Musician Royalty Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Ryan, Allissa Wickham and Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, report that General Motors Co. on Jan. 15 urged a D.C. federal judge to side with the automaker in a proposed class action filed by the Alliance of Artists and Recording Cos. Inc. over allegedly unpaid music royalties, arguing it doesn't even manufacture or sell devices that fall under the Audio Home Recording Act. The automaker's motion for judgment echoed a similar October filing from co-defendant Ford Motor Co., which also said its accused navigation devices fall outside the scope of the act. Both GM and Ford are seeking to escape the row, claiming their vehicles contain music systems that are covered by the act, yet the companies, as well as the systems' manufacturers, Denso International America Inc. and Clarion Corp. of America, have refused to pay royalties to artists. "There is no allegation that GM's systems can be used to promote further reproductions from music stored on the hard drives. AARC has not pleaded, and cannot plead, any set of facts that plausibly establish that the AHRA applies to GM's systems or that GM has violated any provision of the AHRA," GM said in its motion. The suit was filed in July on behalf of a proposed class of tens of thousands of copyright owners and featured recording artists and organizations that represent them, including the AARC, which is a nonprofit organization that collects and distributes royalties. The complaint alleges the companies ran afoul of the AHRA by distributing music-copying car devices that aren't registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, aren't equipped with the serial copy management system and for which they hadn't paid royalties. The devices at the heart of the litigation are marketed as a 10GB digital Jukebox that can hold up to 2,400 songs and an "infotainment system" in which music from CDs can be recorded and stored on a hard drive. Michigan-based Denso manufactures the hard drive device for GM and Clarion, with headquarters in Japan, makes Ford's Jukebox system. Ford and audio company Clarion urged the judge to dismiss the suit in October, arguing the navigation systems produced by Clarion and installed in Ford's vehicles merely allow consumers to copy CDs to a hard drive, and do not reproduce "digital music recordings" under the plain meaning of the AHRA. "Because [the navigation system] records CDs only to its own hard drive, any music fixed on the hard drive is not a digital musical recording as the statute defines that term," Ford argued. "The Ninth Circuit has previously reached this precise conclusion." Ford pointed out that under the AHRA, "digital music recordings" do not include material objects that have fixed computer programs, or material objects that include fixed, nonaudio data. Because its navigation systems have hard drives containing both programs and nonsound data, cars with these systems are not capable of making copies of digital musical recordings as defined by the act, Ford argued. In its Jan. 15 filing, GM said that the complaint establishes that it doesn't manufacture devices that fall under the act for the same reason. Linda R. Bocchi, the executive director of the AARC, told Law360 on Jan. 16 that the automaker's motion "fundamentally misconstrues" the statute and asks the court to "second guess" the policy decisions made by Congress when passing the act. "At the heart of this suit is the fact that GM is refusing to pay music creators the royalties that are clearly required under the law, and it is AARC's obligation to collect what these music creators are owed," Ms. Bocchi said. GM is represented by Andrew P. Bridges -- abridges@fenwick.com -- David L. Hayes -- dhayes@fenwick.com -- and Mary E. Milionis of Fenwick & West LLP. Ford and Clarion are represented by Van H. Beckwith, Paul J. Reilly -- paul.reilly@bakerbotts.com -- and Joshua H. Packman -- joshua.packman@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker Botts LLP. AARC is represented by Dustin Cho and Jonathan Sperling of Covington & Burling LLP. The case is Alliance of Artists and Recording Cos. Inc. v. General Motors Co. et al., case number 1:14-cv-01271, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. GEORGIA, USA: Bid to Junk Suit Over Same-Sex Marriage Ban Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Same-sex couples seeking to wed in Georgia may pursue a challenge to the state's gay marriage ban, reports Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. U.S. District Judge William Duffey refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year on behalf of four Georgia-based same-sex couples and the surviving partner of a fifth couple. The lawsuit, which claimed that the state's refusal to marry same-sex couples, or recognize gay marriages from other states, violated the couples' constitutional rights, is one of many such class actions filed nationwide. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review appeals from other states in October, but is expected to rule on the issue in the near future due to a split among federal appellate courts. Georgia is one of 14 states that limit marriage to the legal union between a man and a woman and refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states. Several states reversed similar bans following legal challenges, with Florida being the last to join that group earlier in January. Georgia voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage in 2004. Gay rights groups challenged the wording of the ballot in state court, but the Georgia Supreme Court found the vote valid in 2006. The 2014 federal lawsuit challenged the ban itself, as opposed to the wording of the amendment. Lead plaintiffs Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman, of Snellville, Ga., have lived together since 2004 and adopted a son who is now 9, according to the lawsuit. The couple sought to legalize their union, but the state denied them a marriage license, they claimed in the complaint. Their co-plaintiffs claimed the state's refusal to recognize them as legal spouses deprived them of health insurance and survivor benefits available to legally married couples. Moreover, the couples cannot jointly adopt the children they are raising together, according to the lawsuit. Co-plaintiff Jennifer Sisson, whose same-sex partner died in 2014, sought to be added as the legal wife on her partner's death certificate. The state tried to dismiss the claims, arguing that the ban furthered its legitimate interest in providing family stability and child welfare. But Duffey ruled on January 8 that the state could not show how the ban advanced such interests. In addressing the plaintiffs' arguments, the court noted that the right to marry a person of the same sex is not among the rights "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition." U.S. Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage a fundamental right did not extend to same-sex marriage, according to the January 8 ruling. As for the couples' equal-protection claims, Georgia's marriage laws prohibit same-sex marriage, but do not discriminate against men or women as a class, the 49-page ruling states. However, the state failed to address "how Georgia's asserted interests in child welfare and procreation are advanced by the state's prohibition on same-sex marriages, and the state's refusal to recognize lawful marriages performed in other states," Duffey wrote. The court lifted a previous stay, allowing the case to proceed to trial. "We are delighted that the court will allow this case to continue," Tara Borelli, an attorney for Lambda Legal, the organization that filed the lawsuit, told The Atlanta Journal- Constitution. "We look forward to our day in court to demonstrate Georgia's marriage ban is unconstitutional and relegates the state's same-sex couples to a second-class status that keeps them and their families vulnerable." Lauren Kane, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Samuel Olens, said the state will continue to enforce its laws pending a final decision on this issue. "The district court issued a preliminary ruling on a motion to dismiss on a pressing legal issue working its way through the higher courts," Kane said in an email to Courthouse News. "We look forward to further clarification regarding the ability of states to decide these questions. The United States Supreme Court has an opportunity to review this issue and will likely announce its intent in the coming weeks. There are other cases pending in front of the 11th Circuit that will provide a similar opportunity. As the issue remains pending, the office will continue to pursue its constitutional obligation to defend the laws as passed by the legislature and the citizens of the state of Georgia." The case is Christopher Inniss, et al. v. Deborah Aderhold, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01180-WSD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Yekutiel Bassul v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00390 (E.D.N.Y., January 25, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Palace, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE 383 Kingston Avenue, #113 Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (347) 651-1077 Facsimile: (347) 464-0012 E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com GOODYEAR TIRE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Heating Hose Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Kurt Orzeck, by Vin Gurrieri, Kira Lerner, Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, report that a Colorado federal jury on Jan. 9 favored Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in a class action by Colorado homeowners alleging the manufacturing giant made faulty heating hoses, saying plaintiffs hadn't provided enough evidence to show the hose is defective in its design as alleged. The jury delivered its verdict after deliberating for less than a day in a trial that began Jan. 5, according to the case docket. Because the jury found insufficient evidence of the alleged defects, it wasn't required to decide whether there was enough evidence Goodyear improperly installed a hose in lead plaintiff David Helmer's home or to apportion fault in damages Mr. Helmer allegedly accrued. The decision came after the Tenth Circuit in May unanimously affirmed U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson's certification of a single-issue class of Colorado homeowners to determine whether Goodyear's Entran 3 hoses used in radiant heating systems have a design defect that caused significant damage to the class members' property. Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Jan. 15 that they are very disappointed in the verdict, are reviewing the record and might appeal. "Our clients now have no choice but to replace their Entran 3 radiant heating systems at their own expense," Mr. Mason said. He added that the verdict, once reduced to a final judgment, will only apply to homeowners in Colorado. Class actions against Goodyear involving the Entran 3 radiant heating systems are also under way in New Mexico and New England, according to Mr. Mason. A spokesman for Goodyear told Law360 that they are pleased with the verdict and that it "vindicated the design of the Entran 3 hose." The suit, filed in March 2012, concerned allegedly defective pipe that Goodyear manufactured between 1992 and 1996 and that is included in 8,000 to 16,000 home heating systems, according to court documents. Judge Jackson's order said that the common defect issues in the suit would predominate because claims made by all class members would be resolved if Goodyear prevailed on the claim. The same order nixed a certification bid by a group of homeowners in Wisconsin, where the pipe was also installed, because the number of affected homeowners was too small. The judge also said that class treatment was superior because, if the hose was found nondefective, any litigation from the entire class would be eliminated, according to court documents. In its April petition to review the order, Goodyear slammed Judge Jackson's ruling, saying that the case requires a site-by-site analysis of each home to determine if any damage to each individual home was caused by the faulty hose or an unrelated component of the heating system. The Tenth Circuit in May rejected the argument that the damages that may have been caused were unique to each home. In July, Judge Jackson granted Goodyear's motion for summary judgment on all claims brought by two Wisconsin plaintiffs, ruling they were barred by the state's six-year statute of limitations on noncontract actions. The jury received its instructions on Jan. 14. The homeowners are represented by Seth A. Katz, Rick D. Bailey and David K. Te Selle of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine PC; Charles J. LaDuca, Michael J. Flannery and Katherine Van Dyck of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP; Michael McShane of Audet & Partners LLP; Gary E. Mason and Jason S. Rathod of Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP; and Robert K. Shelquist and Rebecca A. Peterson -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP. Goodyear is represented by Roger P. Thomasch and David M. Stauss of Ballard Spahr LLP, L. Michael Brooks Jr. of Wells Anderson & Race LLC, and David L. Lenyo and Chad J. Schmit of Garfield & Hecht PC. The case is David Helmer et al. v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., case number 1:12-cv-00685, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. GRILL-PHORIA LLC: Recalls Beef Jerky Treats Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------- Grill-Phoria LLC of Loveland, Colorado is recalling approximately 200, 3.5 oz bags of Big Bark All Natural Beef Jerky Treats for Dogs because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. These bags were distributed and manufactured between September 20, 2014 through January 2, 2015, and do not have lot codes. Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products. Most people recover from salmonellosis in four to seven days without treatment, but some groups are at higher risk of developing more severe symptoms. These high-risk groups are: children under 5 years of age, the elderly, pregnant women, people with weakened immune systems. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. Big Bark All Natural Beef Jerky Treats for Dogs was distributed in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Oklahoma through Nor-Sky Pet Supply LLC through independent pet stores. The product is under the Big Bark label and is in a standup pouch that is 3.5 oz in weight labeled as All Natural Beef Jerky Treat. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall is a result of a routine sampling program by the Colorado Department of Agriculture which revealed that the finished tested positive for Salmonella. Grill-Phoria has ceased the production and distribution of the product as the company continues their investigation as to what caused the problem. Consumers who have purchased Big Bark All Natural Beef Jerky Treats for Dogs (3.5 oz Bag) are urged to return the bag to the store that you purchased it from and get a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Grill-Phoria at between the hours of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (MST) Monday through Friday at 970-663-4561. Photo of the Recalled Products available at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432562.htm HAMCHOROM INC: Recalls HAITAI Tayo & Gyeran Crackers ---------------------------------------------------- Hamchorom, Inc. of Buena Park, CA is recalling 1,200 boxes of HAITAI Tayo Crackers 2014.08.26 2015.08.25 and 1,000 boxes of HAITAI Gyeran Crackers 2014 06.12 2015 06.11 because it may contain undeclared milk and egg. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk and egg run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The products were distributed in CA, TX, WA and AZ directly to grocery stores. HAITAI Tayo Crackers 140g are packaged in blue, yellow, and red boxes with a school bus image. There are 24 boxes per carton. HAITAI Gyeran Crackers 70g are packaged in yellow boxes with an "Angry Birds" logo. There are 20 boxes per carton. There have been no reports of illness or injury. The recall was initiated when a label review of the products was conducted during an FDA inspection, and discovered to have undeclared allergens of milk and egg. Consumers who have purchased these products should return them to the grocery store that they purchased them from. Consumers with questions may contact Hamchorom, Inc. at 714-522-8886. The recall was initiated when a label review of the products was conducted during an FDA inspection, and discovered to have undeclared allergens of milk and egg. Photo of the Recalled Products available at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432568.htm HILTON GRAND: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00109 (M.D. Fla., January 23, 2015), seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited phone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC a subsidiary of Hilton Worldwide and is based in Orlando, Florida. It develops, manages, markets, and operates a system of brand-name vacation club ownership resorts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 1212 SE 2nd Ave Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: (954) 763-8607 E-mail: rphyu@aol.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capital Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, PC 125 Summer St., Suite 1030 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 Facsimile: (508) 319-3077 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net J & S SHEET: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. J & S Sheet Metal Work Corporation and Juan Rodriguez, Case No. 1:15-cv-00724 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. J & S Sheet Metal Work Corporation is a manufacturer and importer of metals and other building supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com KMART CORP: Scott & Scott Comments on Data Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- First NBC Bank, Louisiana, filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court, Illinois,(Case: 1:14-cv-10088) against Kmart Corp and its parent company, Sears Holdings Corporation, demanding a jury trial for injuries the bank and other financial institutions suffered as a result of a data breach on or about September 14. Robert J. Scott, Managing Partner, of technology law firm, Scott & Scott, LLP, says: "This is an interesting case that has widespread implications for data breach litigation." The lawsuit alleges that Kmart failed to install proper software security measures to protect customers' credit and debit card information and negligently relied on outdated anti-virus technology which allowed hackers to breach Kmart's point-of-sale- systems. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to take steps to employ adequate security measures despite recent well- publicized data breaches at other large national retail and restaurant chains including Target, Home Depot, Sally Beauty, and PF Chang's. "I think this is a sound theory of liability for a data breach case," Mr. Scott said. The case also seeks recovery of damages for lost revenue as a result of a decrease in card usage after the breach was disclosed to the public. "I think the lost revenue component of damages will be more difficult to prove than the claims for re-issuing costs and monitoring fees," Mr. Scott said. The Plaintiff claims Kmart's failure to adequately secure their data networks was particularly inexcusable because the breach involved mostly the same techniques used in other data breaches including Target and Home Depot. The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to properly defend sensitive payment card information from what is now a well-known preventable breach. "The outcome of this case will be followed closely especially by large national retailers and restaurants," said Mr. Scott. About Scott & Scott, LLP Scott & Scott, LLP -- http://www.scottandscottllp.com-- is an intellectual property and technology law firm representing businesses in matters involving software licensing. Scott & Scott, LLP Scott's legal and technology professionals provide software audit defense and software compliance solutions, all protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges. LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Retirees Set to Receive Class Action Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- The Independent reports that retirees and surviving beneficiaries from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will soon receive a notice offering a one-time-only chance to opt out of a class action lawsuit aimed at reinstating them to the University of California health care system. The notice is part of the class action procedure. It was approved by Superior Court Judge George Hernandez, who last fall ruled that an estimated 4,500 Laboratory retirees and surviving beneficiaries had enough issues in common to justify their forming a class while pursuing their suit. UC health programs were available to the retirees from the time of the Laboratory's founding in 1952 until 2008, when a for-profit consortium took over for the University as manager of the national defense laboratory. The contract change led to industrial style health care coverage, which many retirees said they have found to be less reliable, more difficult to arrange and generally a violation of promises made during their careers at the Laboratory. They formed a grass roots organization called UC Laboratory Retiree Group that collected money, hired attorneys and filed suit on behalf of named individual retirees in 2010. UC has contested the suit from the beginning, and argued last year against recognition of the LLNL retirees as a class. Court rulings to date have tended to support the retiree arguments. However, the final resolution of the suit is unclear and possibly far in the future, given the drawn out pace of legal proceedings and appeals. Last year, the parties entered into mediation, a process which is not binding but which can sometimes lead to agreement and save disputing parties time and money. The process appears to have broken off, at least for the time being. In a recent email, the president of the UC Laboratory Retiree Group, Marty Crowningshield, wrote, "Although UC has asked us to return to mediation, we have made it clear that we will not return unless their minimum offer is one allowing us to rejoin the UC Retiree System from which we were separated." Mr. Crowningshield also said that the Group is paying about $8,000 for the forthcoming notice, which will give retirees a choice of removing themselves from the lawsuit class. "Unless retirees opt out, they will remain part of the class," he added. LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Abere Newett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., John Barbour, and Raymond L. Arthur, Case No. 3:15-cv-00347 (N.D. Cal., January 23, 2015), 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. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. is a developer of educational entertainment for children. Its product portfolio consists of multimedia learning platforms and related content, and learning toys. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com MANORCARE: Seeks Certification of Hepatitis C Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- KXNews reports that attorneys representing several victims of the Minot Hepatitis-C outbreak have officially asked the federal court to certify their lawsuit as a class-action case. Two law firms are hoping to gain class-action status for the cases as a way to move forward with their lawsuits against ManorCare, to which the first 45 patients found to have the disease were connected, according to the state health department. There is no timetable for when a judge will rule on the class action request. The outbreak now numbers 51, including several patients who had no contact with ManorCare. Health investigators have been unable to pinpoint the exact method of transmission of the blood-borne disease, making the Minot Hepatitis-C outbreak is the largest unsolved outbreak in U.S. history. MASSAGE ENVY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a recently filed class action lawsuit filed against a national massage chain alleged the company's business practices were unfair and deceptive because it won't honor prepaid massages for customers who cancel their memberships. Fumiko Robinson filed the lawsuit against Massage Envy Franchising on Nov. 26 in Broward County Circuit Court in Florida. It was removed to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Jan. 5. Patrons pay $59 per month to Massage Envy for one massage per month, the lawsuit said. The prepaid massages that can't be scheduled during the month roll over to the next month. However, if the customer cancels the membership, they can't receive those rolled over massages, the complaint says. Mr. Robinson is seeking less than $5 million in damages, as well as class status for anyone who prepaid for massages at Massage Envy in Florida. The $5 million figure is a threshold for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, which, the defendant argues, prevents the plaintiffs from artificially structuring their lawsuits to avoid federal jurisdiction. Mr. Robinson is represented by Joshua H. Eggnatz, of The Eggnatz Law Firm, P.A. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida case no. 0:15-cv-60017 METROPOLITAN LIFE: Accused of Misrepresentation in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Claiming that MetLife's "shadow insurance" practices have put the public in peril, a federal class action calls for its New York subsidiary to refund premiums, reports Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service. The subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., is the only defendant to the complaint Andrew Yale, of New York, filed on January 12. Yale says he bought a life insurance policy from Metropolitan Life in 2009, and wants to represent a class who obtained life insurance from Metropolitan Life between Jan. 12, 2009, and January 12, 2015. The lawsuit comes less than a month after the Financial Stability Oversight Council "issued an ominous warning" about MetLife, proclaiming on Dec. 18, 2014, that there is a range of possible alternatives in which financial distress at MetLife would threaten U.S. financial stability. Lurking behind that scenario, Yale notes, is the June 2013 report by the New York State Department of Financial Services on "shadow insurance" practices. "The NYDFS investigation revealed that, by using shadow insurance, at least seventeen of New York's eighty life insurance companies were making their 'capital buffers -- which serve as shock absorbers against unexpected losses or financial shocks -- appear larger and rosier than they actually are,'" the 31-page complaint states. "These misrepresentations, according to the NYDFS report, 'potentially put the stability of the broader financial system at greater risk' and are 'reminiscent of certain practices used in the run up to the financial crisis.'" Yale says life insurers must maintain capital buffers to complement strong assets and reserve liabilities for expected benefits claims, "so they are able to pay claims arising from not only the expected but also unexpected events -- such as the massive, instantaneous loss of life that would take place in a pandemic, a terrorist attack, or other disaster." "This lawsuit is ultimately about how Metrpolitan Life, in conjunction with its parent, MetLife, Inc., is engaging in conduct that imperils the financial future of Metropolitan Life's policyholders, their beneficiaries, and the public at large," the complaint states. Yale says New York's tough laws can hold the company accountable unlike certain other states that "have been in a race to the bottom in terms of regulating insurers." Indeed "the relevant language of New York Insurance Law Section 4226 has remain largely unchanged" since 1939, when the state Legislature gave policyholders a right of action against offending life insurance companies, the complaint states. "The right of action for the recovery of premiums paid due to misrepresentation of financial condition continues in the law as a deterrent to New York insurance companies that may be tempted to skimp on statutory reserve requirements, thereby misleading the public regarding their financial security," Yale says. "Metropolitan Life's use of shadow insurance constituted a misleading representation or a misrepresentation of the financial condition of Metropolitan Life and the adequacy of the reserves and reserve system upon which Metropolitan Life operates," he added. The class seeks a penalty in the form of all premiums paid for the alleged misrepresentation. MetLife sued the Financial Stability Oversight Council on January 13. It is represented by Eugene Scalia, son of the Supreme Court justice, with Gibson Dunn. The class is represented by: Keith Miller, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10112-0085 Telephone: (212) 262-6900 Facsimile: (212) 977-1641 E-mail: KeithMiller@perkinscoie.com MetLife is represented by: Eugene Scalia, Esq. GIBSON DUNN LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 955-8206 Facsimile: (202) 530-9606 E-mail: escalia@gibsondunn.com MICHAEL'S STORES: Faces Class Action Over Background Checks ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Crotty, Esq., and Michael Vanesse, Esq., of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, report that the arts and crafts retailer Michael's Stores, Inc. received notice of a new class action lawsuit challenging its use of applicant background checks. The lawsuit alleges that the retailer failed to provide applicants with adequate advance notice of the criminal and other checks as required under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). FCRA requires any party that uses a consumer reporting agency to obtain a background report to provide certain advance notices and receive consent from the party subject to the search. If the applicant is rejected based on the search, the employer must provide additional notices and opportunities to challenge the report. In the employment context, this includes applicant and employee criminal background and credit histories. The FCRA class action lawsuits seek fines, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. As with many class actions, the damages to any one individual may be small, but can be cumulatively significant when the full class of potential plaintiffs is included. The attorneys' fee remedy provides plaintiffs' class action law firms with a significant incentive to investigate and bring such claims. The Michael's claim adds to a rapidly growing list of employers facing these class action claims. Employers that use outside agencies (including commercial on-line databases) to conduct background checks of employees and applicants should take several measures to avoid these claims. First, they should ask the credit reporting service for detailed information regarding its FCRA compliance measures. This should include reviewing and maintaining copies of disclosure and consent forms used in the review process. In some cases, the employer may use its own FCRA forms. These should be periodically reviewed by legal counsel, and audited by human resource staff to make certain that the FCRA consent information is provided and maintained as required under law. Plaintiffs' law firms with experience in FLSA and other areas have clearly identified FCRA lawsuits as a new frontier for large class action claims. These suits are separate from a growing number of EEOC and private claims alleging disparate impact discrimination through use of background checks. The combination of these concerns may lead employers to take a comprehensive look at their use of background checks, and the safeguards in place to ensure legal compliance. MICROSOFT CORP: September 2015 Trial in British Columbia Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015, for the Quarterly Period Ended December 31, 2014, that a British Columbia class action case is scheduled for trial in September 2015. "A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in various state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain other software products between 1999 and 2005," the Company said. "We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made in the United States. Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies by state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two- thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $300 million, all of which had been accrued as of December 31, 2014. "Three similar cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. After the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case, in October 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial in September 2015. The other two cases were inactive pending action by the Supreme Court on the British Columbia case." MICROSOFT CORP: Argument in US Cell Phone Case Appeal in May 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015, for the Quarterly Period Ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal in the U.S. cell phone litigation is scheduled for argument in May 2015. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. "We have assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS acquisition and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed," Microsoft said. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines ("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines. In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. The motion was heard in December 2013 and January 2014. In March 2014, defendants filed a separate motion to preclude plaintiffs' general causation testimony on the ground that it is pre-empted by federal law because the experts challenge the safety of all cellular handsets, including those that comply with the FCC Guidelines. In August 2014, the court granted in part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation experts. The court granted an order permitting an interlocutory appeal of its decision in October 2014. In December 2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc defendants' interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence. The appeal is scheduled for argument in May 2015. Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal. MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active --------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015, for the Quarterly Period Ended December 31, 2014, that the Canadian cell phone class action is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served. MR. PAPA'S: Faces "Delgado-Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Delgado-Soto, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Mr. Papa's Inc. and Gladys Santana, Case No. 1:15-cv-00723 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS: Has Harassed Black Worker, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Martinez v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) and individually and jointly, Loretta Gallagher, Case No. 1:15-cv-00515-ALC (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2015) alleges that the Defendants harassed and retaliated against the Plaintiff because of her race, color, ethnicity or national origin. Ms. Martinez is a resident of Bronx County, New York. She is a woman with a medium to dark-skinned complexion. She is a Black American and is also of Hispanic descent. During all times relevant to this action, Ms. Martinez worked in the Company's New York City Office. York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is a domestic not for profit corporation that provides healthcare services to clients in New York state. Loretta Gallagher is a resident of New Jersey and was the Plaintiff's former supervisor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Elene Morrison, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LAURIE E. MORRISON 30 Broad Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 785-7835 Facsimile: (646) 651-4821 E-mail: morrison@lemorrisonlaw.com O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Graham" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy L. Graham, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00023 (S.D. Ind., January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. is a specialty retailer of auto parts and accessories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Peter Kondras Jr., Esq. HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Faces Class Action Over Credit Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Coren, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Paramount Pictures Corporation was hit with a class action lawsuit, alleging that it improperly performed consumer reports for the purpose of employment in violation of federal law. California resident and plaintiff Michael Peikoff filed the class action lawsuit against Paramount in a California federal court on Jan. 7, alleging the film production company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it obtained a consumer report about him illegally. "Paramount, as standard practice, routinely procures or causes to be procured 'consumer reports' from consumer reporting agencies about its employees or prospective employees for employment purposes," the Paramount class action lawsuit explains. Mr. Peikoff alleges that Paramount violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not disclosing and obtaining consent from the employee or potential employee to obtain the credit report. He claims in the FCRA class action lawsuit that he applied for a job with Paramount in February 2011. Mr. Peikoff alleges that on his job application it stated: "I authorize the reference listed above, as well as other individuals whom Paramount contacts, to provide Paramount with any and all information concerning my previous employment and any other pertinent information. Further, I release all parties and persons from all liability from any damages that may result from furnishing such information to Paramount as well as from any use or disclosure of such information by Paramount of any of its agents, employees or representatives." Mr. Peikoff alleges in his class action lawsuit that Paramount used this language as permission to obtain a credit report about him, which he says is a in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the federal law, "a consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report for employment purposes only if . . . a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes." This means that the consent form may not be attached or hidden with any other forms, such as on a job application. In addition, the employer must obtain "authorization in writing" by the individual in order to procure a report about an employee or prospective employee. According to Mr. Peikoff's Fair Credit Reporting Act class action lawsuit, "Paramount knew or should have known about its legal obligations under the FCRA. Paramount obtained or had available substantial written materials that apprised it of its duties under the FCRA." He added in the Paramount class action lawsuit that "Paramount intentionally and/or recklessly acted consciously in breaching its known duties and depriving plaintiff and other class members their rights under the FCRA." Mr. Peikoff is proposing a nationwide class of individuals who had a consumer report obtained by Paramount for employment purposes "without first providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing to the consumer at any time before the report was procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes." If Paramount is found liable for the FCRA violations, it will have to pay $100 to $1,000 for each violation. Mr. Peikoff is also asking for punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Mr. Peikoff is represented by Peter Roald Dion-Kindem of The Dion- Kindem Law Firm and Lonnie C. Blanchard III of The Blanchard Law Group APC. Counsel information for Paramount isn't yet available. The Paramount FCRA Class Action Lawsuit is Peikoff v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00068, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Health Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- Nina Liss-Schultz, writing for RH Reality Check, reports that two women's health groups along with a state resident on Jan. 13 filed a class action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS), alleging that the department systematically delayed enrolling low-income women for comprehensive health coverage. The case, Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Mackereth, alleges that 85,000 women are affected by the department's delay. Those thousands of women currently receive limited health coverage through SelectPlan, a public program that covers only family planning care for low-income women, most of whom did not previously qualify for Medicaid. Pennsylvania administers 14 other limited Medicaid programs for low-income people who, like the women in SelectPlan, didn't qualify for full coverage. Those programs include one called General Assistance, which covers very low-income individuals who have short-term disabilities, are survivors of domestic violence, or are in treatment programs for drug and alcohol abuse. Last year the state expanded the eligibility criteria for Medicaid, allowing anyone with an income up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level to qualify starting January 1, 2015. Thousands of the Pennsylvanians receiving limited Medicaid coverage before the new year now qualify for comprehensive coverage through the expansion. Due to the expanded eligibility criteria, the DHS automatically transferred people receiving limited coverage, except the women in SelectPlan, into full coverage Medicaid. But instead of the automatic and timely transfer into comprehensive coverage that the other groups received, the DHS decided to have caseworkers manually review each woman's case file over a period of several months. The beneficiaries of SelectPlan were the only group not automatically given full coverage by the DHS. SelectPlan was originally set to expire completely at the end of 2014, but local advocates were able to get the expiration of the program pushed back until the end of June 2015. Still, the delay could leave thousands of women in a health-care gap, according to the suit. The women in SelectPlan who qualify for Medicaid will be without comprehensive coverage for the several months during which their applications are being reviewed. And the women whose incomes are still too high to qualify them for Medicaid might be out of coverage altogether after February 15, the last day of open enrollment for private insurance. "DHS never told these women they would qualify for full health coverage starting January 1, and they never mentioned the February 15 open enrollment deadline," Women's Law Project staff attorney Susan Frietsche, who is helping represent the plaintiffs in the suit, said in a statement. "Instead, DHS told them it was evaluating what coverage to offer them and if they want timelier help, they should call the Helpline or fill out another application." About 70,000 women currently on SelectPlan are now eligible for coverage under Medicaid, according to the suit. The remaining 15,000 would be eligible for private health insurance. The suit, filed by Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Voices Pittsburgh, a reproductive justice organization, alleges that women on SelectPlan are being unlawfully delayed from full coverage by the DHS. Under federal law, states are required to provide Medicaid "with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals" and to "timely screen those individuals not eligible for full Medicaid and timely refer them to the Marketplace for subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act without requiring a separate application," according to the suit. "This is discrimination against low-income women and it has very real consequences for the Black women and women of color in Pennsylvania," said La'Tasha D. Mayes, founder and executive director of New Voices Pittsburgh, in a statement. "As states surrounding Pennsylvania expanded their Medicaid program over the last year, these women were denied full Medicaid simply because of their zip code. Now that a new plan is finally in place, they are still being denied coverage, this time because they are women. This is unacceptable." PEPSICO INC: Judge Casts Doubt on Cancer-Warning Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge cast doubt on Jan. 15 on a proposed class action seeking to force PepsiCo Inc. to provide medical monitoring to consumers after failing to warn them that its drinks contain a chemical linked to bronchioloalveolar cancer, saying the plaintiffs haven't offered evidence the chemical causes cancer in humans. U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen said that in medical- monitoring cases, the controlling case appears to be a California appeals court's ruling in Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., which found that to obtain medical monitoring, plaintiffs have to show that a chemical is significantly likely to cause serious disease. They also must rely on the testimony of medical experts to get there, he said. "Here, there's not much dispute that lung cancer is serious, but the other factors are problematic," Judge Chen said. For example, consumers' exposure to the chemical at issue, 4-methylimidazole, varies from person to person, and the toxicity level of the chemical isn't clear with respect to bronchioloalveolar cancer, he said. "This is a pretty thin claim, in terms of a causal relationship between [4-methylimidazole] and this form of cancer," Judge Chen said. "I have no idea whether the exposure level causes significant risks . . . and I don't see any studies that have to do with humans." Plaintiffs Paul R. Riva and Danielle Ardagna said in an amended complaint that the National Toxicology Program has found 4- methylimidazole to cause lung tumors in laboratory rats and mice, based on two-year studies of exposure. In addition, they claim that Urvashi Rangan, a toxicologist and Executive Director of the Consumer Reports division that focuses on food safety, said that exposure to more than 4 micrograms of 4- methylimidazole is an "unnecessary risk." Consumer Reports tested Pepsi products and reported in late 2013 that Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and Pepsi One sold in California contain between 29 and 39.5 micrograms of 4-methylimidazole per can, according to the complaint. According to the suit, 4-methylimidazole is among the chemicals that California's Proposition 65 requires "clear and reasonable warning" about. Pepsi failed to warn consumers about the chemical, particularly in Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi, and should provide medical monitoring of class members "so as to account for the increased risk of cancer," the complaint said. Pepsi moved to dismiss the amended complaint in November, saying Mr. Riva's suit was one of nine filed after the Consumer Reports piece, all of which the soda company called "a misguided overreaction to that article." Plaintiffs' attorney Roy Katriel of the Katriel Law Firm argued during the Jan. 15 hearing that the Potter ruling required a trier of fact to determine the risks of a chemical based on expert medical testimony. Using that approach at the pleading stage is premature, although the Consumer Reports piece was based in expert medical findings, he said. "These are fair points to debate, but it doesn't mean it's speculative," Mr. Katriel argued. Pepsi's attorney, Christopher Chorba -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, argued that the court in Potter said the standards it set were necessary to "avoid opening the floodgates of litigation." "All the plaintiffs have alleged here is that the products contain some unacceptable level of [4-methylimidazole]," Mr. Chorba said. "What we have here is a complaint that's really in search of a theory." Judge Chen took the arguments under submission and didn't indicate how he would rule. The plaintiffs are represented by Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel Law Firm and by Ralph B. Kalfayan of Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens LLP. Pepsi is represented by Andrew Tulumello, Christopher Chorba, Sapna D. Pandya and Laren M. Blas of Gibson Dunn and by Trenton H. Norris -- Trent.Norris@aporter.com -- and Sarah Esmaili -- Sarah.Esmaili@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP. The case is Riva et al v. PepsiCo, Inc., case number 3:14-cv- 02020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shimon Gottlieb, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00370-ILG-LB (E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com PROJECT HEALTHY: Recalls Chocolate & Vanilla Protein Powder ----------------------------------------------------------- Project Healthy Living, Inc. of New York, New York (d/b/a Aloha, Inc.) is voluntarily recalling all packages of Premium Protein powder in chocolate and vanilla blends because it has the potential to be contaminated with Staphylococcus enterotoxin. The presence of Staphylococcus enterotoxins may be injurious to health and may result in staphylococcal food poisoning. Nausea, vomiting, retching, abdominal cramping, and prostration may occur. In more severe cases there may be headache, muscle cramping, and transient changes in blood pressure and pulse. The Aloha Premium Protein products were distributed nationwide from November 2014 through January 2015 directly to consumers through online sales and in New York through a very limited number of retail stores. All sizes of Aloha's Vanilla and Chocolate Premium Protein blends are being voluntarily recalled. This product is packaged and sold in both 14-serving sized steel tins and single-serving sized pouches. The single serving pouches may be in kits that contain other products not affected by the voluntary recall. To date, Aloha has received 17 complaints from customers who have reported transient gastrointestinal symptoms consistent with staphylococcal food poisoning. This voluntary recall is a result of an extensive testing program, which Aloha began immediately following individual customer complaints of gastrointestinal issues. Aloha is working closely with its manufacturer, co- packers, ingredient suppliers and distribution partners to determine the source and cause of the contamination. Aloha has temporarily ceased production and distribution of the Premium Protein products until further analytical testing can confirm the specific source of the contamination. Aloha has already notified customers via direct e-mail correspondence and created a dedicated website regarding the voluntary recall. In addition, Aloha is offering 24/7 customer support through Monday, February 2nd and then will resume regular customer support hours (Monday - Friday 10am-9pm EST). All customers who have purchased Aloha's Premium Protein products are instructed to discontinue use and complete the refund form found online at Aloharecall.com. Customers with product remaining are also asked to return the product and its original packaging for further examination. Customers who have purchased Aloha's Premium Protein products will receive a refund and a store credit. In addition, Aloha will cover 100% of the cost of return shipping. For more information on the recall, please visit www.aloharecall.comdisclaimericon No other Aloha products are affected by this recall. PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE: Faces Class Alleging FMLA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Boatwright, James Caldwell, Dayne Clark, Joshua Keyes, Nicholas J. Kuhar, III, and Antonio Marabito, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated current & former employees v. Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. & its Subsidiary and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00481-JBS-AMD (D.N.J., January 23, 2015) seeks relief under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emma Rebecca Rebhorn, Esq. WILLIG WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 E-mail: erebhorn@wwdlaw.com QUEBEC, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Liquor Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------- Pierre Couture, writing for QMI Agency, reports that a Quebec City lawyer is considering relaunching a class-action lawsuit against the province's liquor monopoly despite twice striking out in court. Lawyer David Bourgoin is planning a third run at the SAQ agency using the Consumer Protection Act. At issue is the liquor monopoly's pricing policy. He says the agency marks up the cost of some bottles of wine and spirits by 400% and Quebecers have been known to travel to Ontario to get cheaper booze. "We believe the SAQ's profit margins in certain product categories are simply unfair and unreasonable and go against the Consumer Protection Act," Mr. Bourgoin told QMI Agency. One of Mr. Bourgoin's clients previously lost two bids to file a class-action suit against the SAQ. The latest defeat came on Jan. 14 before the Quebec Court of Appeal. However, the appeals court said the liquor board has no immunity from consumer laws. The apparent opening gives new ammunition to Bourgoin, who's a class-action specialist. ROCK CREEK: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Anatabloc Supplement ---------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin reports that an Illinois federal judge has dismissed a class action complaint filed against the makers of the dietary supplement Anatabloc, ruling that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead his state-law claims of fraud, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In a Jan. 13 order, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois explained that she is not required to first decide whether the plaintiff has standing to pursue his claims under the laws of states other than Illinois because his individual claims were not sufficiently pled. RV TRANSPORT: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maykor Castillo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RV Transport, Inc. and Ringo Valenzuela, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-00527 (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of delivering merchandise in the greater New York City area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq. Michael John Borrelli, Esq. Mindy L. Kallus, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com mlk@employmentlawyernewyork.com SAFWAY SERVICES: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Sergio Escobedo and Jose Valdez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Safway Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-00065-KBM-KK (D.N.M., January 23, 2015) is brought for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caren Sencer, Esq. WEINBERG ROGER & ROSENFELD 1001 Marina Village Parkway, #200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 Telephone: (510) 337-1001 Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 E-mail: csencer@unioncounsel.net - and - James A. Montalbano, Esq. YOUTZ & VALDEZ, PC 900 Gold Avenue SW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 242-1200 Facsimile: (505) 242-9700 E-mail: james@youtzvaldez.com SAKS FIFTH: Sued for Retaliating Against Then-Pregnant Employee --------------------------------------------------------------- Jodie Breece v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc.; Saks, Incorporated; Hudson's Bay Company; and Rebecca Jobo, Case No. 1:15-cv-00524-KBF (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2015) seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, based on the alleged discriminatory and improper actions undertaken by Defendants in their harassment of; creation of a hostile work environment with regard to; retaliation against; and termination of the Plaintiff; all based upon her age, disability, pregnancy and her seeking the protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act and in retaliation for that availment and her complaints about the discriminatory behavior. Ms. Breece is a 42-year-old female resident of New York City. She asserts that within the relevant period, she was forced to go on disability leave to address problems concerning her ectopic pregnancy and was also being medicated for the same medication that had material side-effects requiring reasonable accommodations, which were not afforded to her. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. is a Foreign (Massachusetts) corporation duly authorized to conduct business in the state of New York and Ms. Breece's employer while operating its primary business location in New York City. Saks Incorporated is a Foreign (Tennessee) corporation duly authorized to business in New York, and is SFAI's direct parent corporation. Rebecca Jobo was an officer of SFAI, who was hired as a General Manager in the late summer of 2012, who had direct supervisory authority over Ms. Breece. Hudson's Bay Company is a Foreign (Ontario, Canada) corporation, which conducts business in the United States through a variety of stores with multiple retail outlets in New York and across the United States, including Hudson's Bay, Lord & Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Saks Fifth Avenue Off Fifth. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan Leonard, Esq. Neal Brickman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF NEAL BRICKMAN 317 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 986-6840 Facsimile: (212) 986-7691 E-mail: ethan@brickmanlaw.com neal@brickmanlaw.com SAQ: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Price Mark-Ups -------------------------------------------------- CJAD News reports that a class action suit against the SAQ is taking aim at what it calls unfair price mark-ups. The suit, launched by Quebec City lawyer David Bourgoin, alleges that the liquor commission often sells its most popular products at well over twice what it paid for. Mr. Bourgoin says the SAQ is gouging customers, especially on its less expensive wines and liquors. The suit in particular is looking at "the biggest volume of products -- wine under $25," he said. "In this category there's a higher volume of profit, and a higher rate of profit. So for us, it's most abusive in this category." He says outrageous markups - sometimes up to 400 per cent -- are flagrant violations of the Consumer Protection Act. An earlier class action suit was deemed too broad, so by focusing on the SAQ's most popular products, Mr. Bourgoin believes he has a better chance at making his case. If successful, he thinks the SAQ could be on the hook for over a hundred million dollars. He is hoping to launch the new suit within the next few weeks. SCHNUCK MARKETS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Barker, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that Schnuck Markets scored a victory on Jan. 15 in its legal battle against two credit card payment processors in the aftermath of a massive data breach two years ago. U.S. District Judge John Ross sided with Schnuck and its argument that the Maryland Heights-based supermarket chain was liable only for $500,000 in damages to the two processors -- First Data Merchant Services and Citicorp Payment Services. Schnuck sued the processors in late 2013, claiming they were withholding too much money to cover losses resulting from the breach. The data theft started in December of 2012 and ran through March of 2013 and exposed an estimated 2.4 million credit and debit cards. In his ruling, the judge cited a 2011 agreement between the grocer and the card processors that limited Schnuck's liability to $500,000 -- unless it failed to comply with "an industry-imposed network security framework." The judge rejected claims by processors that a clause mentioning "third party fees" and "fees, fines or penalties" allowed them to shift more liability onto the grocer. The judge ordered the processors to return to Schnuck any extra money that's been withheld. The amount was not specified but was called "substantial" by Schnuck. Schnuck and Citicorp decline to comment. First Data could not be reached. Last year, the chain agreed to a $2.1 million settlement of a class action lawsuit on behalf of customers. The money is to be used to pay for a variety of inconveniences, including up to $200 in out-of-pocket expenses for things like unreimbursed bank fees, long distance and cellphone charges incurred while dealing with the fallout, credit monitoring services and time spent working with banks, merchants and creditors. The settlement also called for the class action attorneys to be paid up to $635,000, plus expenses. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Trial Begins in Suit Alleging Forced Labor ---------------------------------------------------------------- As opening arguments began January 13 in a case highlighting serious flaws in the nation's guest worker program, a few things were beyond dispute, reports Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service. In late 2006, pressed by a backlog of contracts to repair oil platforms and vessels damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Signal International began recruiting workers from India. The first arrived in November 2006, and soon, nearly 600 Indian workers were put to work at Signal's plants in Pascagoula, Miss., and Orange, Texas. Two years later, the workers began filing what grew to be more than a dozen lawsuits, claiming they were lured to the U.S. with false promises of green cards only to find themselves confined to a crowded, unsanitary camp. But as the trial on these claims got underway at the federal courthouse in New Orleans, attorneys representing four separate interests gave conflicting accounts of how the workers wound up living together in several tiny trailers, whether the men were promised permanent citizenship, and if they were allowed to leave. Alan Howard, representing the Indian workers, said officials at Signal International thought the Indian workers would be happy to live together in tiny trailers with just two toilets each because they were coming from India, and anything provided to them would be better than living back home. Howard quoted from an email from an American worker at Signal International upon seeing the camp of trailers. With indoor plumbing and lots of space between the beds, the man reportedly said the Indian workers would think the camp was like the "Taj Mahal" and would be happy to just roll out of bed and go to work. That same man later told attorneys he only thought this because of what he'd heard about the living conditions in India -- stories that recounted their digging ditches for sanitation, and about how bad Indians smelled. Although the first of the workers began to arrive only in late 2006, by early 2007 the men were already falling ill due to the overcrowded, unsanitary conditions at the camp, Howard said. Howard quoted from the private journal entry of the same American worker who had made the "Taj Mahal" remark. An entry from February 2007 notes the horrid conditions and the Indians' resulting sickness: "Our men have been dropping with sickness like blocks," he wrote, going on to say that shoddy plumbing had resulted in pools of standing water "everywhere" that created a "bacterial breeding" camp. Howard said one of the Indian workers became so sick he had to be hospitalized. Howard said the Indian workers were lured to the United States with promises of permanent residency, and that they had paid Signal recruiters as much as $20,000 apiece, for which they'd sold their valuables and took out high-interest loans. Signal International acknowledges the Indians came to the United States with their own money and on false promises, but insists the untruths and unfair payments were the work of their own lawyers and of "unscrupulous" third party recruiters. Signal has brought cross claims against the lawyers and recruiters, saying they promised permanent visas without Signal's knowing; but Howard said that even while Signal publically blamed the other parties, it continued to work with those parties and continued to make false promises to recruit cheap labor. Howard pointed to an internal email from Signal about recruitment that instructs that the "permanent status" will continue. Howard said that after the first Indians began to arrive in 2006, one of the company's recruiters wrote an email to Signal: "One of us needs to be with the candidates" as they enter customs coming into the country, "they say the dumbest things and need to be coached." The email went on to complain about one worker who told officials he was getting a green card from Signal and referred to the man as a "goner." Howard showed a portion of deposition from Signal CEO Dick Marler, who was asked why company officials didn't give back the fees workers paid or stop offering green cards when they knew the promises were false. "We needed workers," Marler replied. Erin Casey Hangartner, appearing on behalf of Signal International, told the jury they had heard many emotionally charged statements over the course of day, statements that repeatedly raised the specter of "cheap labor, expendable labor." Hangartner thought the jury needed to see the situation in a different light. "This is a case about a company bringing the Gulf Coast up from its knees," she said. "It's not a case about 'cheap labor.'" Hangartner emphasized the need for workers after Hurricane Katrina, and said the work required skilled pipefitters, not just anybody "off the street." She said the trailers at the camp weren't doublewide trailers but doublewide prefab housing units, and that Signal international contracted with the owner of a New Orleans Indian restaurant to provide the workers with three Indian meals a day. "There were complaints" about housing, Hangartner said. She acknowledged that Signal CEO Marler himself said the housing units were too small the first time he walked through.' We need more beds, more toilets,'" Marler had said. But Hangartner said even though there were just two sinks and two toilets in each bunk house, there were entire trailers that were just sinks and just toilets. "Signal went above and beyond to make its workers happy," she said. "Don't think that everything was those bunk rooms," Hangartner said. Buses were hired to take the men on outings, to Wal-Mart and to do other shopping, she said. Also, they were taken on weekend trips to a bar. She also noted that at the shipbuilding facility itself, Signal provided a prayer room and a TV room with an Indian station. Hangartner said the workers' claims they were forced to live at the camp wasn't quite true, but it was true that the camp was the best place for them to live. The workers came from India without drivers' licenses or bank accounts or any paperwork that would have helped them to find a better place to live, she said. "The bottom line," she said, was at the time there just weren't enough available houses for 290 extra people in Pascacoula, Mississippi. The workers complained about having $1,000 deducted every month from their checks to cover rent, but Hangartner said that amount covered everything: rent, food, utilities. Two hundred of the workers were direct hires by Signal and received the same benefits as any other Signal employee, including health insurance and a 401K, Hangartner said. As for Signal's promises the workers would receive permanent status, Hangartner said the company was new to hiring foreign workers and "didn't understand" how it was done, so it hired an immigration attorney, New Orleans-based Malvern Burnett, and he explained the method. You cannot enter the United States with the intention of staying in the United States, Hangartner said. So Burnett explained to Signal the way immigration needed to be handled, and Signal took his word. The method was H2B temporary visa, then "extension, extension, green card," Hangartner said. The extensions on the H2B visa can only be applied for by the same company that originally granted the work visa, so employees have to stay at the same job if they want to stay in the United States. "You hear: 'They were tied to their employer!' They were," Hangartner said. "The law is you have to work for the same employer that sponsored you for the H2B visa. . . . Signal International did not bind these workers to Signal. The law binded them." Hangartner said Signal trusted its attorney, and that Burnett was the one calling all the shots with regard to immigration promises and paperwork. "Are you supposed to hire an attorney to make sure your attorney tells the truth?" Hangartner asked. "That defies logic." "Malvern Burnett led the workers to believe [getting a green card] was an easy process," Hangartner said. She said one of the recruiters, Michael Pol, was fired after Signal found out that money was being taken from the workers before they left India and that false promises were being made. Signal "compromised," Hangartner said, by helping some of the workers' families to come over. "Do you cut them off? Do you leave them in India? Do you leave them in India knowing they cannot make a fraction of the money they could make in the United States?" Hangertner asked. She said Signal did what it thought was most beneficial for the workers after it found out they'd paid thousands of dollars to come over. Next, Tim Cherniglia, representing Malvern Burnett, said "Signal knew exactly what they were doing." The opening statements concluded with Steve Shapiro appearing on behalf of Sachin Dewan, a former recruiter for Signal International. Shapiro told jurors: "Signal is undoubtedly trying to blame everyone for their own problems." He said Dewan was hired to recruit workers in India on behalf of Signal, and that the arrangement was well understood by both parties: fees were to be charged to workers themselves, not signal, and signal would deduct fees for food and housing from workers' wages. This is the first of many trials Signal International faces in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi after class action certification was denied by a federal judge last year. Allegations are the company brought over as many as 500 Indian workers, took the workers' money on the false promise they would become permanent U.S. residents and forced them to work at Signal's Pascagoula shipyard. The federal jury trial continued on January 14 and is slated to last five weeks. SINGING RIVER: Judge Delays Pension Plan Termination for 90 Days ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Lee, writing for Sun Herald, reports that U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. has prohibited Singing River Health System trustees from terminating the employee pension plan for at least 90 days from the date of Dec. 15. Judge Guirola entered the order in a potential class-action lawsuit filed by five current and former health system employees against the health system, its Board of Trustees and several former executives. Attorneys for both sides reached the agreement before Judge Guirola entered the order to enforce it. The agreement also provides that during the 90-day period: -- Retirees will continue to receive their pensions. -- No retirement contributions will be deducted from employees' checks. -- SRHS will continue to accrue liabilities for funding the retirement plan. -- SRHS will pay no attorneys' fees or legal expenses from the plan, -- No action will be taken that affects the plan's operation or status. All health system documents related to the retirement plan and the lawsuit will be preserved. Attorneys Jim Reeves and Stephen Nicholas, representing the employees, and Brett Williams, representing the hospital, signed the agreement before Judge Guirola entered an order Jan. 15. The definition of "documents" to be preserved consumes 1 1/2 pages of the five-page order. "This should hold everything in place," Mr. Reeves said on Jan. 15. "I think this lets us catch our breath." The Dec. 15 date is significant because that is when the Jackson County Board of Supervisors and the county-owned health system signed an agreement that prohibits termination of the pension plan. But their agreement runs "90 days or shorter if agreed between the parties . . ." Judge Guirola's order does not allow for a shorter time but does include the potential for extension. SRHS employees contributed a mandatory 3 percent of pay to the pension, but the health system stopped funding its share after 2009 without informing employees. Employees learned from media reports in October the pension was in trouble. They learned in March, after former CEO Chris Anderson departed for Baptist Health Systems in Jackson, that SRHS is having major financial problems. The Board of Trustees voted in secret Nov. 20 to terminate the pension plan. Retirees and employees have filed at least nine lawsuits over the failed pension, including two potential class-action suits in federal court and emergency state court action that prohibited pension plan termination for 10 days at a time. "I think this will calm people down," Reeves said. "They're locked down. They won't be able to do anything with this plan for 90 days." Health system communications director Richard Lucas said, "A similar stay agreement was offered to the plaintiffs' attorneys involved in the individual lawsuits filed in state court, but was refused by those attorneys. These multiple lawsuits are very costly to an organization trying diligently to restore its financial health." STATE FARM: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action --------------------------------------------- Emily Field and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that an Illinois federal judge on Jan. 13 dismissed a plaintiff from a proposed Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action alleging that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is vicariously liable for telemarketing calls made by a third party, saying that he hadn't alleged sufficient facts to back his claims. U.S Judge Amy St. Eve granted State Farm's motion to dismiss plaintiff Josh Friedman, saying that he hadn't stated sufficient facts to link the calls he allegedly received to the insurer, but nixed the attempt to escape class allegations. The judge rejected State Farm's argument that plaintiffs' class definition is an improper fail-safe class and that it would be impossible to find out who belongs in the class without investigating each alleged call made on the insurer's behalf by Variable Marketing LLC. The judge said that it would be premature to strike class allegations before the plaintiffs had a chance to conduct more discovery. "Simply put, plaintiffs need additional discovery to determine the extent to which they can link calls made by Variable to State Farm," the judge said. "Further, even if plaintiffs' current class definition is potentially 'fail-safe,' the Seventh Circuit has held that the fail-safe problem 'can and often should be solved by refining the class definition rather than by flatly denying class certification on that basis.'" The judge said that the proposed class is defined as anyone in the U.S. who received an autodialed call on their cellphone from Variable while it was acting on State Farm's behalf. Judge St. Eve's ruling marks the second time that the insurer has failed to escape the consolidated class action complaint filed by seven named plaintiffs alleging violations of the TCPA. In August, the judge dismissed claims against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Co. to dismiss the suit, but said that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to support holding State Farm vicariously liable for telemarketing calls made by lead generator marketing company Variable under a subagency theory. The plaintiffs had contended in their second amended complaint that Variable kept track of the leads sent to State Farm and had argued that they might be able to obtain records of calls Variable made for State Farm, according to the ruling. The judge also denied State Farm's motion to dismiss another plaintiff, Matt Clark, saying that he sufficiently alleged his claim by stating the phone number that placed the call and linking it to another plaintiff's more detailed allegations. Plaintiffs' counsel Jonathan Selbin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP told Law360 that "we are pleased with the court's thoughtful analysis and ruling and look forward to pressing ahead with discovery." Plaintiffs Jennifer Smith and four others filed an amended complaint on Sept. 4 alleging that they had received prerecorded phone calls on their cellphones advertising auto insurance quotes from State Farm without their consent. Two of the plaintiffs placed their cellphone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan D. Selbin, Douglas I. Cuthbertson and Daniel M. Hutchinson of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Alexander H. Burke of Burke Law Offices LLC. State Farm is represented by Ronald S. Safer, Joseph A. Cancila Jr., James P. Gaughan and Virginia O. Hancock of Schiff Hardin LLP. The case is Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., case number 1:13-cv-02018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. STONE MOUNTAIN: Recalls 8oz. Packs Pecanettes Due to Salmonella --------------------------------------------------------------- Georgia Agriculture Commissioner Gary W. Black is alerting Georgians to the recall of certain pecan products for potential health risk. The products were distributed only in the State of Georgia, directly to consumers at the retail level from the Stone Mountain Pecan Company, located in Monroe. The Stone Mountain Pecan Company is recalling 540 packages of the "Pecanettes" sold in 8-ounce packages, because the product has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Based upon random sampling conducted by the GDA, it was determined the "Pecanettes" products tested positive for Salmonella. The products were sold in 8-ounce clear plastic packages, Lot code 4032A, with a "sell by date" of 12/30/15. At this time, Pecanettes with lot number 4032A are the only products affected by this recall. To date, there have been no reports of illnesses associated with this recall. Consumers who have purchased the Pecanettes are encouraged to return the product for a full refund. Consumers with questions or concerns may contact the company at 770-207-6486 between the hours of 8 a.m.-4 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday. This is one of several recalls impacting the State of Georgia this month. To view a comprehensive list of food and feed recalls affecting Georgia, please visit www.agr.georgia.gov/recalls.aspx If this recall expands or additional details become available, the website will provide the most up-to-date information. Also follow the GDA on Twitter @GDAFoodSafety for recall alerts and food safety tips. Photo of the Recalled Products available at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm432485.htm SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Heath Hill" Suit Over Viptera Corn -------------------------------------------------------- H. Heath Hill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02243 (D. Kan., January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold. The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business, developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural products throughout the United States, including corn seed with certain genetically modified traits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Renae D. Steiner, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com - and - John G. Felder Jr., Esq. MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER 1517 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 779-0100 Facsimile: (803) 256-0702 E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com - and - John G. Felder Sr., Esq. Bates N. Felder THE FELDER FIRM, LLP 641 N.F.R. Huff Drive St. Matthews, SC 29135-0346 Telephone: (803) 874-1430 Facsimile: (803) 655-7167 SYNGENTA CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over GMO Corn Seed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on Jan. 15 disclosed that it has filed a case on behalf of farmers who planted corn during the 2013/14 and 2014/15 crop years and suffered losses due to the drop in corn prices, which the complaint alleges occurred when China closed its market to U.S. corn imports in November 2013 as a result of the actions of Syngenta Corp., Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc. in commercializing its genetically modified corn trait MIR162 and allowing MIR162 to contaminate the U.S. corn supply. Syngenta is in the business of developing and selling corn seed with certain genetically modified traits. At issue here is Syngenta's genetically modified corn trait MIR162, branded as Agrisure Viptera ("Viptera corn"). China is currently the third largest export market for U.S. corn, and it requires prior government approval for genetically modified commodities and products to be imported. When Syngenta commercialized Viptera corn in 2012, China had not authorized the importation of MIR162- traited corn into China and would ban corn imports contaminated with MIR162. According to the complaint, Syngenta nevertheless enticed farmers to grow its genetically modified MIR162 corn, while promoting practices virtually guaranteed to result in commingling of MIR162 with the rest of the corn supply. Syngenta allegedly misinformed farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public into believing that approval from China was imminent. China, however, did not approve MIR162 for importation. Starting in November 2013, China rejected shipments of corn containing MIR162. While recent reports state that the Chinese government has now approved the import of MIR162, this announcement has not restored the trade in U.S. corn to levels they would otherwise have been. Thus, plaintiffs claim that Syngenta's premature release of Viptera corn caused sales of U.S. corn to China to be banned, which, in turn, created an excess of corn on the U.S. market, depressing U.S. corn prices and causing billions of dollars of damages to U.S. corn exporters. Scott+Scott has filed a legal action on behalf of farmers injured by this conduct to hold Syngenta accountable for the loss of the Chinese export market for U.S. corn, and all other resultant damages. If you have suffered losses due to the drop in U.S. corn prices during the 2013/14 and 2014/15 crop seasons, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, (860) 537- 5537) to discuss your legal options or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide. SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Michael Hill" Suit Over Contaminated Corn ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hill v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., and Syngenta AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-02244-JWL-JPO (D. Kan., January 23, 2015) arises from the alleged contamination of the U.S. corn supply with Syngenta's unapproved genetically modified corn. Mr. Michael Hill is a citizen of the state of Missouri. He grew corn in Randolph County, Missouri, in the 2013-2014 growing season. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Syngenta develops and produces agricultural seeds, including corn and soybean seeds, and in particular Viptera and Duracade. Syngenta AG is a Swiss company headquartered in Basel, Switzerland. Syngenta AG is the world's largest crop chemicals company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Thomas J. Preuss, Esq. Christopher L. Schnieders, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wagstaffcartmell.com ebarton@wagstaffcartmell.com thudson@wagstaffcartmell.com tjpreuss@wcllp.com cschnieders@wagstaffcartmell.com TD BANK: Sued Over Improper Collection of Overdraft Fees -------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that four people filed a class action lawsuit against New Jersey-based TD Bank, N.A., alleging fraud and breach of contract on Jan. 9. Frederick Klein, of Marlton, N.J.; Ronald Ryan, of Boca Raton, Fla.; Geoffrey Grant, of Wilmington, N.C.; and Tashina Drakeford, of Bronx, N.Y., alleged that the bank improperly assessed and collected overdraft fees between Aug. 15, 2010 and the present. The suit alleges that TD Bank utilized and misrepresented improper practices by assessing overdraft fees when accounts were not actually overdrawn. TD Bank operates branches in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia and Washington, D.C. The plaintiffs seek to be appointed representatives of the class and to be awarded compensatory damages in an as yet unspecified amount. The plaintiffs and proposed class are jointly represented by Joseph G. Sauder -- JosephSauder@chimicles.com -- and Matthew D. Schelkopf -- MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com -- of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP in Haverford, Pa.; Richard D. McCune and Jae K. Kim, of McCuneWright LLP, in Redlands, Calif.; and Taras Kick and Thomas A. Segal, of The Kick Law Firm, APC, in Santa Monica, Calif.. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden case no. 1:15-cv-00179 TOYOTA MOTOR: Urges Jury to Decide on Evidence in Crash Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that a Toyota Motor Corp. lawyer has told a Minnesota jury deciding whether the automaker is responsible for a crash that killed three people that the car couldn't have accelerated so quickly if the driver hit the brakes as he claimed. David Graves said in his closing argument on Jan. 28 the 2006 accident was a tragedy but jurors should decide on the evidence, not on sympathy for the victims. Mr. Graves said the science shows there's no way Koua (KOO'-uh) Fong Lee's Camry could have accelerated from 55 to 60 mph on a freeway off-ramp to 70 mph at the point of impact unless Lee had the throttle wide open. Lee spent 2 1/2 years in prison for the crash before being released after reports suggested that some Toyota cars had sudden acceleration problems. TPG CAPITAL: Judge Tosses Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck and Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, report that a California state judge has axed a consolidated shareholder class action alleging TPG Capital LP's $394 million purchase of Delaware corporation Arden Group Inc.'s luxury supermarket chain Gelson's stiffed shareholders to enrich Arden's board, ruling the transaction appeared to be entitled to safe harbor protection under Delaware state law. Judge Jane L. Johnson decided on Jan. 14 that the transaction was entitled to safe harbor because Arden CEO, President and Chairman Bernard Briskin -- who controlled 56.5 percent of Arden's common stock -- agreed to sell his shares for the same price as what shareholders were due to receive. She thus sustained Arden and TPG's demurrers to the complaint's single cause of action, for breach of fiduciary duty, despite having tentatively decided to the contrary at the time of oral arguments in October. The complaint contended the purchase was done for a "mere" $126.50 per share because Mr. Briskin, who is in his 80s, wanted to cash his shares out to the tune of $219 million, regardless of whether competing bids could have provided more overall value for shareholders. The judge on Jan. 14 ruled that the Delaware Supreme Court has held that enhanced scrutiny review is triggered only in situations where the sale shifts aggregate control from a fluid body of public shareholders to a single controlling shareholder -- which isn't the case in the instant dispute. "These types of lawsuits are expensive, distracting and time consuming, interfering with the company's business on a going- forward basis," Judge Johnson wrote. "Many are well taken and deserve to be fully litigated. On the basis of the facts alleged and cases cited, this transaction appears entitled to safe harbor protection." Shareholder the George Leon Family Trust filed suit in December 2013, shortly after TPG announced its cash purchase of Gelson's -- a luxury market chain founded in 1951, with 17 stores in Southern California -- under which TPG would maintain Arden as a subsidiary. In October, plaintiffs' attorneys told Judge Johnson that Mr. Briskin simply didn't fulfill his duty to the shareholders because of his desire for liquidity, as evidenced in Arden's Jan. 29 information statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which revealed that the board had given TPG a "tip" to keep it in the bidding despite its initial bid being low. Arden countered that boardmembers got sole-bidder TPG to pay more than market value and that plaintiffs did not allege any facts to show that the board was doing anything but seeking the highest price reasonably available when it signed off on the deal. Judge Johnson said during oral arguments in October that given the standard on demurrer, she had to give deference to what was pled in the complaint but she would be reviewing the arguments raised, and she took the matter under submission. On Jan. 14, the judge said it was her intention to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend unless plaintiffs could show how they could amend the complaint and how it would change the legal effect of the pleading. Christopher G. Green -- Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com -- of Ropes & Gray LLP, which is representing TPG, told Law360 on Jan. 16 that they are very gratified by Judge Johnson's decision. "This is an all-out victory on an important trend in Delaware shareholder law class actions, because there are so many cases that are being pursued in non-Delaware jurisdictions. This is another example of defendants getting a good result in a difficult area of law, we are really gratified." Eric S. Waxman -- eric.waxman@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, which is representing Arden, expressed similar sentiments to Law360 on Jan. 16. "Judge Johnson carefully reviewed and analyzed relevant cases and applied that case law to the admitted facts in plaintiffs' complaint about how the board handled the transaction," he said. The plaintiffs are represented by Randall J. Baron, A. Rick Atwood Jr., David T. Wissbroecker and Edward M. Gergosian of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Arden is represented by Eric S. Waxman and Richard S. Horvath Jr. of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP. TPG is represented by Christopher G. Green and Rocky C. Tsai -- Rocky.Tsai@ropesgray.com -- of Ropes & Gray LLP. The case is the George Leon Family Trust v. Arden Group Inc. et al., case number BC531846, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settles False Advertising Claims for $40MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer C. Kerr, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the nation's largest prepaid mobile provider, TracFone Wireless, will pay $40 million to settle government claims that it misled millions of smartphone customers with promises of unlimited data service. The Federal Trade Commission said on Jan. 28 that TracFone's advertising promised unlimited data, but the company then drastically slowed down consumers' data speeds -- a practice known as throttling -- when they had used a certain amount of data within a 30-day period. In some cases, the FTC said, the company cut off customers' data service when they ran over the limit. TracFone's prepaid wireless service is sold under various brands, including Straight Talk, Net10, Simple Mobile and Telcel America. Throttling will slow down the ability to open Web pages or stream video. According to the commission, TracFone generally throttled the data flow when a customer used about 1 gigabyte to 3 gigabytes. Data service was sometimes suspended at 4 gigabytes to 5 gigabytes, the FTC said. "The issue here is simple: Unlimited means unlimited," said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's consumer protection bureau, in a call with reporters. "This case is about false advertising." In a statement, TracFone said it worked with the commission to "reach an amicable settlement, and we have no further comment at this time." The prepaid monthly plans were sold at Walmart, Best Buy, Target and other retailers across the country as well as online. Consumers who had a Straight Talk, Net10, Simple Mobile, or Telcel America unlimited plan before January 2015 can file a claim for a refund. Refunds will vary depending on several factors, including how long a consumer had the TracFone plan and how many consumers request refunds. The FTC charges that TracFone has been throttling consumers or cutting unlimited service since 2009. The commission's complaint says there was no technical reason for TracFone to limit the data plans, such as slowing speeds because of network congestion. Internal documents, the FTC says, suggest the throttling was done to "reduce the high costs associated" with providing unlimited data. In September 2013, TracFone began making some disclosures about throttling unlimited plans, but they were usually not clear or the print was too small for a consumer to notice them, the FTC said. The commission sued AT&T late last year over the same issue. AT&T has denied misleading customers over its unlimited data plans. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Charges Fictitious LAX Airport Fees, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Uber charged tens of thousands of customers "fictitious" LAX airport fees, though its drivers don't pay anything to the airport, a class action claims in California Superior Court. Lead plaintiff Cy R. Brown sued Uber Technologies on Jan 6, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, conversion, unjust enrichment and other counts. Brown claims that licensed taxis pay Los Angeles International Airport more than $3 million in fees, and that Uber is not authorized to operate at the airport but nonetheless charges passengers a $4 fee. Brown says he paid $73 for an Oct. 16, 2013 trip to the airport after finding a rideshare driver through the Uber smartphone app. Included in his receipt was the $4 charge for the LAX airport fee, he says. "Uber has imposed the fictitious 'LAX airport fee' upon tens of thousands of passengers," Brown says in his 16-page complaint. In December, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon and Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey settled a civil consumer protection claim against rideshare company Lyft. The San Francisco based-company is required to tighten background checks and seek permission from airports where the service operates. Lyft also agreed to pay $500,000 in civil penalties. The same day, the prosecutors announced a lawsuit against Uber, claiming that the service was charging a fraudulent $4 fee at San Francisco International Airport, and taking shortcuts on background checks. "Unfortunately, Uber, unlike Lyft, has refused to comply with reasonable regulations as required by California law," District Attorney Lacey said on Dec. 9. "As a result, Uber continues to put consumers at risk by misleading the public about the background checks of its drivers and its unwillingness to ensure that correct fares are charged." Brown seeks compensatory and statutory damages, and costs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com UNITED STATES: Judge Strikes Down Minimum Wage Regulation --------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Journal reports that a federal judge for the second time in a month struck down a piece of U.S. Department of Labor regulations intended to expand minimum-wage and overtime protections for home care workers. Home care provider companies argued the department unlawfully narrowed the definition of "companionship services" eligible for exemptions from minimum-wage and overtime requirements. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon on Jan. 14 agreed, finding Congress had already clearly spoken on the scope of "companionship services." The previous regulation defined "companionship services" as the provision of "fellowship, care and protection" for individuals unable to care for their needs. The revised regulation placed limits on the amount of "care" -- activities such as dressing, feeding or preparing meals -- a worker could provide before minimum-wage and overtime protections kicked in. UNITY DISPOSAL: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santos Flores, Francisco Javier Fuentes, Jose Novoa, Anthony Taylor, Juan Luis Valerio Olivares, and Damion West, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Unity Disposal and Recycling, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00196 (D. Md., January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Unity Disposal and Recycling, LLC is a Maryland corporation that provides trash collection services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC 1701 K St NW Ste 210 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 Facsimile: (202) 223-8651 E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Faces "Alba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Alba and Jacob Hahn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Windows Direct Of Wisconsin, Inc., d/b/a Universal Windows Direct and Roofing of Milwaukee, Erik Beste, and John J. Lambrecht, Jr., Case No. 2:15-cv-00090 (E.D. Wis., January 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a company that manufactures home improvement products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL SC 222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA: Hockey Team Scraps Season Amid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Mehta, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the University of Ottawa announced on Jan. 16 that its men's varsity hockey team, which was suspended last year in connection with a sexual assault investigation, will not take to the ice in the 2015-2016 season. Instead, the university said, the team will "make the most of the coming year" to implement new measures that will provide student athletes with "better guidance." Two students who were on the team, and are not part of the class action, were charged last summer with sexually assaulting a female student at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont., in February. Almost a month after the alleged incident, the entire hockey team was suspended for the season. That suspension will now continue at least until the 2016-2017 season, which is when the university says it aims to relaunch its men's hockey program. "The university does not wish to field a less-than-competitive team whose performance would not meet the expectations of the university community," the university said in a statement. Following the initial suspension of the team, the school launched an internal investigation and said it would implement new behavior guidelines. That probe was in addition to a wider report on respect and equality on campus, which the university said it was looking forward to. "Even though we have reviewed some of our practices and procedures, we feel it is essential to wait for the Task Force on Respect and Equality to submit its report, which is expected shortly," University President Allan Rock said in a statement on the team's extended suspension. "Given these circumstances, we feel that this is the best decision." The announcement came as a shock to team members who were part of the class action against the university, their lawyer said. "It's a vindictive decision which adds more damage to the injuries they've already caused to these young men's lives and careers," said Lawrence Greenspon. "There's a number of the players who stayed at the University of Ottawa on the understanding and on the word of Mr. Rock that there would be a 2015-2016 hockey season. And the university has now gone back on its word." Mr. Greenspon added that he thought the university's reasons for not allowing the team to play for another season were "spurious at best." The results of the university's internal investigation into the team were not made public last year but did prompt the university to fire the team's head coach, Real Paiement. Mr. Rock said the coach was not involved in the misconduct but should have notified authorities about the allegations. The university said it is now looking for a new coach and will also need to recruit more than 20 "high-caliber" student athletes in order to perform well. The suspension of the team has been a controversial matter ever since it was first announced. Rock has acknowledged that innocent members of the team have been tarred by the scandal which rattled the university community. "The shadow cast by the allegations of misconduct has affected all members of the team, some unfairly," he said in June. It was that sweeping tarnishing of reputations that led to the class-action lawsuit being launched, Mr. Greenspon has said. The suit is seeking $6 million in damages and, if certified, could take years to be settled. Meanwhile, the case of the two team members who were charged is working its way through the legal system. Guillaume Donovan, 24, and David Foucher, 25, both of Gatineau, Que., were each charged last August with one count of sexual assault. Police said the alleged assault of a 21-year-old woman took place in a hotel early on Feb. 2, but authorities were only informed of the incident on Feb. 25, when a third party came forward with a complaint. VECTOR TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Bret Johnson, Margaret Yeldell, and Marnecio Duff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vector Transportation Co. and Joseph D. Estess, Case No. 1:15-cv-00020 (N.D. Miss., January 23, 2015), seeks to recover to unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a freighting brokering company that arranges transportation drivers for shipping needs of its customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert N. Norris, Esq. WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC 1880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G Jackson, MS 39216 Telephone: (601) 968-0000 Facsimile: (601) 968-0010 E-mail: nick@louiswatson.com WALGREEN CO: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Reynolds and Robert Mason, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 4:15-cv-00324 (N.D. Cal., January 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and highly misleading advertisement and product label of its Well CoQ10 softgel dietary supplement as an Enhanced Absorption Formula. Accoridng to the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), for a supplement to exhibit reasonably effective bioavailability through absorption it needs a minimal threshold of rupture within 15 minutes, and 75% dissolution. The Defendant's laboratory tests demonstrate that the Well CoQ10 softgels fail to timely rupture, and exhibit substantially less than the 75% dissolution that USP considers necessary in order to provide sufficient absorption for reasonably effective bioavailability. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Tran Nguyen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 4th Ave., Ste. 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Skye Resendes, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com skye@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com WALMART STORES: Faces False Ad Class Suit Over Arm & Hammer Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against Walmart on Jan. 12 alleges that the company falsely advertised a popular baking soda brand on its website. Roque Hernandez filed the suit alleging Walmart advertised Arm & Hammer Fresh-N-Natural Baking Soda as a three-pack for $2 on its website. When Hernandez purchased the product, he allegedly received only a single one-pound box. Mr. Hernandez said he purchased the baking soda because of the price. He said when he called Walmart's customer service, he was informed that the purchase price was for only one package. The lawsuit alleges Walmart violated the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and seeks class status for anyone who purchased the product online while it was advertised as a three-pack. Hernandez is seeking more than $5 million in the suit. Mr. Hernandez is represented by Robert L. Kraselnik of the Law Office of Robert L. Kraselnik and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. WARNER MUSIC: Court Awards $2 Million to Musicians' Attorneys ------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that attorneys for Sister Sledge and Ronee Blakley were awarded $2 million in fees for a class action royalties complaint against Warner Music Group. The musicians claimed that Warner cheats artists on royalties for digital downloads. Warner miscalculated the royalties by treating downloads of MP3 files and ringtones as sales of physical records, rather than as licenses, according to the lawsuit. Warner agreed in April 2014 to pay an $11.5 million settlement. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg on January 12 awarded plaintiffs' attorneys $2 million in fees, plus $97,400 in expenses. Seeborg also granted incentive awards of $10,000 each to class representatives Sister Sledge (Kathy Sledge Lightfoot), Ronee Blakley and Gary Wright, and the same awards to three former class representatives. The case is In Re: Warner Music Group Corp. Digital Downloads Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-00559-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in Washington Over Foreclosure -------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed recently alleges Wells Fargo Bank went into a couple's home, changed the locks and took out its possessions after the property went into foreclosure. David and Rhonda Huber filed the lawsuit against the bank in the Snohomish Superior Court in Washington. The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 13. The couple purchased a vacant lot in 2007 with a loan from Wells Fargo. In 2009, the bank entered into a non-judicial foreclosure after the Hubers became delinquent on their mortgage payments. The Hubers' suit alleged Wells Fargo agents went into the home that was built on the lot, changed the locks and removed their property without permission. The mortgage agreement does specify that the bank is permitted to enter the home for "property preservation measures," if the borrower breaches the contract, the lawsuit said. The Hubers contacted the bank and demanded an explanation, but the bank allegedly failed to respond to them. The couple believes that the bank has done this to other borrowers and is seeking class status in the suit. The suit alleged that Wells Fargo owes borrowers the implied duties of good faith and fair dealing. The Hubers are represented by Clay M. Gatens, of Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn & Aylward, P.S.; and Michael D Daudt -- mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- of Terrell, Marshall, Daudt & Willie, PLLC. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case number 2:15-cv-00051 WET SEAL: Faces Class Action Over Store Closures ------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Randles and Matt Chiappardi, writing for Law360, report that The Wet Seal Inc., which announced on Jan. 16 it will file for bankruptcy, has been hit with a proposed class action in California accusing it of violating a federal law by keeping workers in the dark before the troubled teen apparel retailer shuttered most of its stores. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two of the nearly 3,700 Wet Seal employees who lost their jobs when the company announced earlier this month that it would shutter most of its stores. The complaint was filed a day before Wet Seal, which for months had been struggling to stay afloat, filed for Chapter 11. Named plaintiffs Katelin Pruitt, who worked at a store in North Carolina, and Lalaine Ortega, who worked in Georgia, say the company never informed them about the retailer's precarious financial situation. "Despite strong evidence that Wet Seal was in steep decline, it continued to keep its employees uninformed right up until they abruptly fired 3,695 of their employees," the lawsuit said. Ms. Pruitt and Ms. Ortega seek to represent a class of former Wet Seal employees who lost their jobs as a result of the layoffs the company announced January 7. The complaint claims Wet Seal violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by not giving employees proper notification of the layoffs, and seeks 60 days pay and benefits for class members. California-based Wet Seal blamed its bankruptcy filing in part on a shift in its operating strategies after company chief Ed Thomas left as CEO in late 2011, and major shifts in the so-called fast fashion industry -- clothing and apparel based on the latest fashion trends. Thomas had returned to head the company in September, aiming to reestablish the profitable model Wet Seal says he produced during his first tenure from 2007 to 2011, but the debtor was already facing a liquidity crisis and didn't have enough time to get the turnaround going, according to a bankruptcy declaration from Chief Financial Officer Thomas R. Hillebrandt. The plaintiffs are represented by John Gomez, John Fiske and Stephanie Poli of Gomez Trial Attorneys; Joseph Sauder, Matthew Schelkopf, Benjamin Johns -- BenJohns@chimicles.com -- and Joseph Kenney -- JosephKenney@chimicles.com -- of Chimcles & Tikellis LLP; and Richard Maniskas of Ryan & Maniskas LLP. The case is Katelin Pruitt et al. v. The Wet Seal Inc., case number 2:15-cv-00312, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. ********* 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 * * *