/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 30 Headlines 466 AMAZECORP: "Shen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AAA SALES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA AARON'S INC: Couple Urges 3rd Cir. to Let Them Represent Class ADVANCED TECH-CABLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AIRPORT CONCESSIONS: Atty. Fees Motion in O'Brien Suit Ruled On ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Khunt" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Securities Law Violations AMERICAN PROFIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act AMSPEC LLC: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation and Damages ARUBA NETWORKS: Judge Quashes Securities Fraud Claims ASTRAZENECA AB: 1st Circuit Upheld Class Status for Nexium Suit AVALON COMMUNITIES: Suit Seeks Reimbursement for Property Damages AVILA SOUTH: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA AZ CHILD SAFETY DEP'T: Faces Suit by Kids in Foster Care Custody B-B OIL: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay BIRMINGHAM, AL: Police Chief Defends Use of Pepper Spray BOSTON ROAD AUTO: Used Car Customer Wins Judgment on TILA Claim BP PLC: Atty. Criticizes Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Settlement BRIGHT STAR: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Ramirez" Suit Says CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Danner" Class Action May Proceed CALIFORNIA: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Butler" Petition CATERPILLAR INC: Ex-Employees Reinstated in Insurance Plan CENTRAL GARDEN: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Action Claims CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Accused of Sex Discrimination in W.D. Texas CGG LAND: "Sharp" Claim Wins Conditional Certification CHYRONHEGO CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Company Sale CKL T TRADING: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CLEANNET USA: "Sanchez" Plaintiffs Ordered to Arbitration COURTESY CAR: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Violation of ADA CVA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims D.R. HORTON: Rancho De Paz Homeowners' Class Allegations Tossed DRESSMAN BENZINGER: Class Deal in "Lavelle" Suit Gets Final OK DRUG-FREE WORKFORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims ELIASEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations FLEXXRAY LLC: Faces "Viveros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FLINT, MI: Water Treatment Issues May Spur Class Action GEM PAVER: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims GLOBAL STRUCTURES: Faces "Kernes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GOLD RESOURCE: 10th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices HARVARD DRUG: Offer of Judgment Doesn't Moot Case, 11th Cir. Says HOME DEPOT: Alcoa Community Suit Included in Security Breach MDL HOME LOAN SERVICING: Sued in SDNY Over Misleading Fin'l Reports HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Faces "Luparello" Class Suit in New Jersey IMAGEONE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Bolstridge" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania INOVASI RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims INVENSENSE INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action JP MORGAN: Attempts to Abusively Collect a Debt, Class Claims KARYN'S FRESH: Violates FLSA and IMWL, "Henriquez" Suit Claims KPMG LLP: 1,000+ Female Employees Join Pay Discrimination Suit LA FOGATA: Removes "Somarriba" Suit to Florida District Court LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Ebarle" Action Over Deceptive Advertising LHR INC: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act LS IMPORT: Recalls Push Toys Due to Chocking Hazard M&G POLYMERS: S.C. Tossed Contribution-Free Health Care Benefits MANHATTAN BANCORP: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to Plaza Bancorp MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Sued in California Over Points Timeshare Plan MB FINANCIAL: "McCue" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MERCER CANYONS: Must Face Migrant Wage Class Action METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Insurance-Related Class Suit in New York MF GLOBAL: NY Judge Rules on Document Production Bid MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y., Suit Says MUAK BABY: Recalls 3-in-1 High Chairs Duet to Injury Risk NAGOYA JAPANESE: "Liong" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages NAT'L COLLEGIATE: EA Sports Judges to Hear Antitrust Class Action NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Suggests Changes to Concussion Settlement NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Court Limits Claims Against APAC & Chang NEW JERSEY: Fathers Sue Over Child Custody Proceedings NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Moose Class action Appeal Hearing Wraps Up NITE LIGHT: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages OMEGA FLEX: Negligence/Strict Liability Dichotomy Repudiated PANTRY INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Couche-Tard, Suit Claims PFIZER INC: Sued for Keeping Celebrex Generics From Consumers PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Fails to Keep Expert Witness in Zoloft MDL PRANNATH INC: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PROCTER & GAMBLE: Plaintiffs' Causation Expert Can't Testify PUNCHGINI INC: "Kumar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages REAL AWNING: Faces "Veiga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime REGENCY ENERGY: Being Sold to ETP for Too Little, Suit Claims SAN DIEGO GAS: Lower Court Ruling on "Guerra" Class Reversed SARA J HAMILTON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act SEA GULL LIGHTING: Recalls Light Chandeliers Due to Injury Risk SHEBOYGAN CITY, WI: Removes "Gilbertson" Suit to E.D. Wisconsin STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act STRATEGIC FUNDRAISING: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Says TGI FRIDAY'S: Wage Theft Suit Gets Conditional Certification THOMPSON CREEK: Case Venue of "Aronstein" Suit Moved to Colorado TOYOTA MOTOR: Must Pay $11 Million to 1996 Camry Crash Victims USA BABY: Labor Dept. Wins Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit USA WATER POLO: Accused of Failing to Manage/Treat Head Injuries VAN'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued on Cal. Over Misleading Product Label VELTI PLC: $9.5MM Class Action Settlement, Counsel Fees Approved WADE ELBO: Faces "Mowery" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ********* 466 AMAZECORP: "Shen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yu Ling Shen, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. 466 AmazeCorp. d/b/a Amaze Fusion& Lounge, Xue Mei Chen, John (first name unknown) Huang, John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00663 (S.D.N.Y., January 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 466 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY 10024. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com AAA SALES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Sanchez v. AAA Sales & Service, Inc., and William Gendler, Case No. 1:15-cv-00775 (S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages and compensation due to time shaving, (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. AAA Sales & Service, Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation with a principal place of business located in New York City. William Gendler is the president of AAA Sales. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com AARON'S INC: Couple Urges 3rd Cir. to Let Them Represent Class -------------------------------------------------------------- A couple suing Aaron's Inc. over spyware hidden on its computer rentals urged the 3rd Circuit on January 23 to let them represent a class, reports Andrew Thompson at Courthouse News Service. Crystal and Brian Bird filed suit over a computer they leased in 2010 at a Wyoming-based franchise of Aaron's. On 11 different days between Nov. 16 and Dec. 20 that year, the spyware program installed on the computer that the Birds had rented accessed their web activity and keystrokes 347 times, even taking pictures of Brian while played a game of Internet poker, the complaint alleges. While the franchisee, Aspen Way Enterprises, allegedly collected the data in this case, the Byrds say Aaron's franchisees across the country have been secretly installing spyware on their rent- to-own computers since 2009. The couple sought to represent a class all customers and their "household members" who had used computers with the spyware. A federal judge handling the case in Pittsburgh shot down the motion for class certification last year, however, based on a magistrate's finding that the class was defined too broadly and that its members were not "ascertainable," or objectively identifiable. Urging the federal appeals court to reverse on January 23, the Byrds' attorney, Frederick Longer, said that figuring out who the alleged spying affected is not so hard. "There's a hard drive in the District Court clerk's office that has every single captured spying session," Longer said. "Pictures of people?" asked Judge Marjorie Rendell. "Yes. "In every instance?" "In every instance, there is a packet of information from the computer the person is operating, shipped to wherever Aaron's corporate server is." Christie Brown, the attorney for Aaron's Inc., meanwhile lobbied the three-judge panel to affirm. "This class is drafted so broadly that it unquestionably encompasses people who don't have a claim," Brown said. Judge D. Brooks Smith replied that broadness was not an obstacle at the trial stage, citing 3rd Circuit precedent that says "you don't need to know how many" members of a class there are to define the class. Brown emphasized the lower court's finding that "household members" included a group of people for whom proving harm would be impossible in most cases. Longer, the plaintiff's attorney, said his experience dictates a different outcome. "I've been doing for this for a long time," he said, "and I thought this was the perfect class action, the paradigm class action." Aaron's entered into a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission in March 2014 and agreed to cease all of its spying. ADVANCED TECH-CABLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Melgar, Jose Alfredo Guradado, Jose Antonio Blanco, Luis Cruz Vasquez, and all others similarly situated v. Advanced Tech- Cable Corporation, & Dan Ganea, Case No. 0:15-cv-60194 (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Advanced Tech-Cable Corporation is a Florida corporation enaged in ground cable installation business with its principal place of business listed as 2839 Dewey Street, Hollywood, Florida 33020. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq. Matthew Seth Sarelson, P.A. 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 920 Miami, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 773-1952 E-mail: msarelson@sarelson.com AIRPORT CONCESSIONS: Atty. Fees Motion in O'Brien Suit Ruled On --------------------------------------------------------------- In O'BRIEN v. AIRPORT CONCESSIONS, INC., a Colorado district court entered an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's renewed motion for attorney fees, costs and an incentive award for the Class Representative. Specifically, District Judge Christine M. Arguello awards attorney fees in the amount of $73,266, costs in the amount of $2,252.93, and an incentive award for the Class Representative in the amount of $2,500. A copy of the District Court's Jan. 16, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/8Z87SXfrom Leagle.com. The action is captioned ROBERT O'BRIEN, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AIRPORT CONCESSIONS, INC., a Colorado corporation, d/b/a CONNECTIONS MADE EZ, Defendant, Civil Action No. 13-CV-01700-CMA-BNB, (D. Co.). Robert O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Michael Tamburelli, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., Frank James Stretz, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., Todd Elliott Mair, Peters Mair Wilcox & Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C.. Airport Concessions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Hubert A. Farbes, Jr. -- hfarbes@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP & Jonathan George Pray -- gpray@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP. ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Khunt" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Manishkumar Khunt, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and Maggie Wei Wu, Case No. 1:15-cv-00759 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), alleges that the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the soundness of the Company's business operations, the strength of its financial prospects and concealing substantial ongoing regulatory scrutiny. Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a China-based on line and mobile commerce company in retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud computing and other services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Katherine Blasy, Esq. Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Services Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: mblasy@rgrdlaw.com srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "Klein" Suit Over Securities Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Devorah Klein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and Maggie Wei Wu, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00811-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2015) is a securities class action brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Alibaba between October 21, 2014, and January 28, 2015, against Alibaba and certain of its officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Alibaba is a China-based online and mobile commerce company in retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud computing and other services. The Company hosts an online sales platform for third parties and does not engage in any direct sales, compete with merchants or hold inventory. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312)377-1181 Facsimile: (312)377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com AMERICAN PROFIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Esther Frankel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. American Profit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00503 (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com AMSPEC LLC: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation and Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Vaden, Ernesto Fausto and Luis Martinez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amspec, L.L.C. f/k/a Amspec Services, L.L.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-00074 (S.D. Tex., February 3, 2015) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. AmSpec, L.L.C., formerly known as Amspec Services, L.L.C., is a New Jersey limited liability company, doing business in the state of Texas. AmSpec provides, among other things, laboratory testing, laboratory outsourcing, cargo inspection, and certification services for the petrochemical industry on a global basis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Craig M. Sico, Esq. SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP 802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 653-3300 Facsimile: (361) 653-3333 E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com csico@swhhb.com - and - Timothy D. Raub, Esq. RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C. 814 Leopard Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 880-8181 Facsimile: (361) 887-6521 E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com ARUBA NETWORKS: Judge Quashes Securities Fraud Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge quashed securities fraud claims against a Silicon Valley wireless provider on Feb. 2, ruling there is no evidence the company or its executives made false or misleading statements to shareholders. The ruling is a win for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati lawyers, who represent Aruba Networks Inc. Plaintiffs lawyers had claimed executives at the Sunnyvale company concealed the threat posed by rival Cisco Systems Inc. But after giving plaintiffs two chances to amend their complaint, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California dismissed the suit with prejudice. "The statements made by Aruba's executives, while perhaps a bit squirrely, were not nearly as nefarious or misleading as the plaintiffs contend," he wrote in a five-page order. Plaintiffs lawyers with Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener had accused defendants of hiding the success of Cisco's sales campaign, which included cutting prices, bundling its wired and wireless products and offering data center upgrades. Aruba, which doesn't sell wired products, couldn't compete with the full-package deal Cisco promoted. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs lawyers wrote, Aruba executives maintained their company was "the technology leader" over Cisco, and said "we're winning almost every deal we see." But Judge Chhabria wrote that plaintiffs provided no evidence those boasts were false and that Aruba was losing market share to Cisco. Furthermore, "it was no secret Cisco was a formidable competitor," Judge Chhabria wrote. Aruba executives told shareholders they expected competition to "intensify in the future," and listed Cisco as one of the company's "large and well-established" competitors. Wilson Sonsini partner Ignacio Salceda -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- and counsel Diane Walters -- dwalters@wsgr.com -- represent Aruba. ASTRAZENECA AB: 1st Circuit Upheld Class Status for Nexium Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Union health funds alleging that AstraZeneca paid generic drugmakers not to challenge its Nexium patents were properly certified as a class, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a 1st Circuit ruling. AstraZeneca owns several patents related to its blockbuster heartburn drug Nexium, which made $3.8 billion for the company in 2013. When three generic drug companies sought to market a generic version of the drug, AstraZeneca sued them for patent infringement, and eventually settled with each, agreeing to pay the generic makers a significant about of money in exchange for not challenging the validity of the Nexium patents. The deal has kept any generic substitute for Nexium from reaching the market even though AstraZeneca's patents expired in May 2014. Several union health funds that reimburse members for prescription drug costs sued AstraZeneca in Massachusetts, alleging that the Nexium patents would have been held invalid but for the pharmaceutical company's unlawful noncompete agreements with generic manufacturers. The patents were invalidated in both Europe and Canada as obvious in light of earlier AstraZeneca patents. Claiming that a generic version of Nexium could have been available in 2008, the complaint by the union funds says they paid an inflated price for the drug for the last seven years. The 1st Circuit affirmed class-action status for the case last week, despite claims that the lack of a generic alternative has not injured all class members. In support of this argument, AstraZeneca had pointed out that brand-loyal consumers would have kept buying Nexium even if a generic were available. But the Boston-based federal appeals court called it "difficult to understand why the presence of uninjured class members at the preliminary stage should defeat class certification." "Ultimately, the defendants will not pay, and the class members will not recover, amounts attributable to uninjured class members, and judgment will not be entered in favor of such members," Judge Timothy Dyk, sitting by designation from the Federal Circuit, wrote for a three-member panel. It does not harm the defendants to include plaintiffs who are potentially ineligible to recover damages, and Supreme Court precedent does not require every putative class member to show injury before class certification, the court found. "We think that a certified class may include a de minimis number of potentially uninjured parties," Dyk said. "We need not decide whether it is ever permissible to define a proper class including more than a de minimis number of uninjured parties since we conclude that it has not been shown that the class here includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured parties." The consolidated case is captioned Astrazeneca AB, et al., Defendants-Appellants v. United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et al., Plaintiffs- Appellees, Case Nos. 14-1521 and 14-1522, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The consolidated case is also captioned In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation. AVALON COMMUNITIES: Suit Seeks Reimbursement for Property Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alessandro Demarco and Amanda Bayer, husband and wife, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Avalon Communities, Inc., ABC Corporations 1-10, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-00628 (D.N.J., January 29, 2015), seeks to recover all property damages and reimbursement of individual losses situated by the Plaintiffs, as a result of the Defendant's negligent conduct, specifically by failing to have adequate sprinklers in the attic and concealed spaces and for using material made of lightweight wood construction that may have accelerated the fire. Avalon Communities, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that operates a real estate investment trust engaging in the development, redevelopment, acquisition, ownership and operation of multifamily communities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PC 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 636-8000 E-mail: dlapinski@wilentz.com AVILA SOUTH: Sued Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wallace Boota v. Avila South Condominium Assocation, Inc., a Florida for-profit corporation, and Juan Delgado, an individual, Case No. 1:15-cv-20424-JLK (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2015) is brought for alleged unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Avila South Condominium Association, Inc. is a Florida for-profit company that owns and operates Avila South Condominium located in Sunny Isles Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Juan Delgado was the president of Avila South. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com AZ CHILD SAFETY DEP'T: Faces Suit by Kids in Foster Care Custody ---------------------------------------------------------------- B.K. by her next friend Margaret Tinsley; C.P. and B.T. by their next friend Jennifer Kupiszewski; A.A.; A.C-B; M.C-B; J.C-B; D.C- B; J.M. and J.C. by their next friend Susan Brandt, for themselves and those similarly situated v. Charles Flanagan, in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Child Safety; and William Humble, in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-00185-ROS (D. Ariz., February 3, 2015) is a civil rights action brought on behalf of a general class of children, who are or will be placed in foster care custody following reports that they have suffered child abuse or neglect, and certain subclasses of these children. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to end certain child welfare policies and practices exposing them to yet further physical and emotional harm and unreasonable risk of harm while in the State's care. Charles Flanagan, the Director of Department of Child Safety, and William Humble, the Director of the Department of Health Services, are sued solely in their official capacity. DCS is legally responsible for managing the state's child welfare system. DHS is responsible for providing mental and behavioral health services to children in Arizona state foster care custody. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith Beauchamp, Esq. Roopali H. Desai, Esq. Shelley Tolman, Esq. COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 381-5478 Facsimile: (602) 224-6020 E-mail: kbeauchamp@cblawyers.com rdesai@cblawyers.com stolman@cblawyers.com - and - William Kapell, Esq. Julia L. Davis, Esq. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015 E-mail: wkapell@childrensrights.org jdavis@childrensrights.org - and - Anne C. Ronan, Esq. Timothy M. Hogan, Esq. ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 514 West Roosevelt Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 258-8850 Facsimile: (602) 258-8757 E-mail: aronan@aclpi.org thogan@aclpi.org B-B OIL: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firms of Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C., Korein Tillery LLC, and Girardi & Keese announce that a federal district court in Kansas overseeing a multidistrict litigation proceeding (MDL No. 1840) has given preliminary approval to settlements with 28 different defendants in a consumer class action lawsuit concerning how gasoline and diesel motor fuel are sold at retail gas stations. The settlements may affect the rights of any person who bought motor fuel on or after January 1, 2001. The settling defendants are B-B Oil Company, Inc.; BP Products North America Inc. and BP West Coast Products LLC (together, "BP"); Casey's General Stores, Inc.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc. ("CUSA"); CITGO Petroleum Corporation; ConocoPhillips Company; Coulson Oil Company, Inc.; Dansk Investment Group, Inc. (f/k/a USA Petroleum Corporation); Diamond State Oil, LLC; ExxonMobil Corporation, Esso Virgin Islands, Inc., and Mobil Oil Guam, Inc. (together, "ExxonMobil"); E-Z Mart Stores, Inc.; Flash Market, Inc.; G&M Oil Company, Inc., and G&M Oil Co., LLC (together, "G&M"); J&P Flash, Inc.; Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.; Magness Oil Company; M. M. Fowler, Inc.; Port Cities Oil, LLC; Sam's Club; Motiva Enterprises LLC and Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US ("Shell"); Sinclair Oil Corporation; Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC; Thorntons Inc.; United El Segundo, Inc.; Valero Marketing and Supply Company; World Oil Corp.; and W.R. Hess. The settlements cover persons and entities who purchased motor fuel after January 1, 2001 (for 24 settlements), or after January 1, 2004 (for 4 settlements), in the following states and jurisdictions: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, DC., Guam, and the Virgin Islands. There is a separate proposed settlement for each company, and each settlement may not cover all of the states and jurisdictions. Under the settlements with 6 of the companies (BP, CUSA, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Sinclair), the companies will collectively pay $22.925 million into funds (i) to reimburse retailers for the costs of installing equipment that corrects for the effects of temperature on motor fuel, and (ii) to help state officials who oversee the retail sale of motor fuel make sure that any changes in how motor fuel is sold are done lawfully. Settlements with 18 companies, which total $1,577,500, fund only the second activity. A portion of the settlement funds may be used to cover costs, including the costs of providing notice to class members, and legal fees. The other 4 settling companies (Casey's, Dansk, Sam's Club, and Valero) have agreed to gradually convert a portion of their existing and new stations, where permitted by state law, to fuel pumps that can adjust for the effects of temperature. The proposed settlements provide no money directly to consumers who have purchased retail motor fuel. The court has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, June 9, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to determine whether to give final approval to the settlements. For more information about the settlements -- including instructions about how to exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements and preserve your right to sue the settling defendants on your own, and how to object to the settlement(s) -- visit www.HotFuelSettlements.com or call 1-888-384-7228. You can also contact the notice administrator by writing to Hot Fuel Settlements, c/o Dahl Administration, PO Box 3614, Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614. BIRMINGHAM, AL: Police Chief Defends Use of Pepper Spray -------------------------------------------------------- Kent Faulk, writing for AOL.com, reports that birmingham Police Chief A.C. Roper, in testimony on Jan. 23, defended the officers who serve at School Resource Officers -- or SROs -- and the policies that give them the option to use pepper spray on a student if necessary. SROs are selected for their desires and skills in mentoring and coaching children and unlike a beat officer can ask to be transferred off their assignment at any time, Mr. Roper said. "And they do an amazing job," he said. Mr. Roper testified in the non-jury trial for a 2010 class action lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center seeking to stop the use of pepper spray by Birmingham police officers assigned as SROs in city high schools or require more officer training and supervision. The trial is being held before U.S. District Court Judge Abdul Kallon, who will decide whether the SROs should be allowed to use the pepper spray -- or Mace -- on campus. The lawsuit names Mr. Roper and six Birmingham Police Officers who serve as SROs inside city high schools. Attorneys for the officers have said that there were only a few incidents where pepper spray was used in Birmingham school each month from 2006 to 2011. Mr. Roper had been called to the witness stand to testify for the Southern Poverty Law Center. But his attorneys plan to call him back to the witness stand after the law center finishes its case. Birmingham's police department has been accredited since 1988 and undergoes re-accreditation every three years. "Our policies have met those standards," he said. Under its department policies there is a force continuum in which officers can use the appropriate force in order to control suspects or crowds. That range starts with an officer simply appearing at a scene to verbal commands, followed by use of soft hand controls, hard hand controls, pepper spray, batons, tasers and finally guns. The officer has the discretion to use any one of those options, Roper said. While SROs don't carry tasers in the schools, being an SRO does not "supersede" their responsibilities and authority as a police officer, Roper said. The police department signed a 2009 agreement to place SROs in the school, Mr. Roper said. That agreement was signed by the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office, the county's family court, and the school system, he said. A lawyer from the Southern Poverty Law Center also was at a meeting to discuss the agreement, he said. But nowhere in the agreement does it supersede state law regarding the authority of police officers, Roper said. Mr. Roper testified that other police chiefs around the country have told him at conferences about incidents where their police officers have had to use Mace in schools, including one in California. But when pressed to recall a specific police chief or city, he couldn't. A University of Maryland professor had testified that other than Birmingham he hadn't heard of incidents involving police using pepper spray on students. Mr. Roper said he hadn't met a police chief yet who would take something, like pepper spray, off an officer's belt. Judge Kallon asked Roper if an SRO arrived at the scene of a shouting match between a student and teacher and the student began yelling obscenities at the officer if the use of pepper spray would be allowed to use pepper spray. If that happened, Roper said, "the SRO would have to justify it." The Southern Poverty Law Center issued a statement following the Jan. 23 testimony. "The Court heard from all eight plaintiffs in this case about their experience being maced in Birmingham City Schools," said Ebony Howard, senior staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center. "It was truly empowering for these former students to be able to step forward and call out this injustice in front of the officers who sprayed them with mace while attending school." The trial was set to continue on Jan. 26 with two experts who will testify on behalf of the Center. Dr. Daphne Glindmeyer, a psychiatrist, will testify about the psychological effects of pepper spray on students in school environments. Chief Daniel Coulombe, a law enforcement expert, will discuss the appropriate use of chemical spray in schools, as well as proper decontamination procedures. BOSTON ROAD AUTO: Used Car Customer Wins Judgment on TILA Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Jager sued Boston Road Auto Mall, Inc. (BRAM) for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. sec. 1601 et seq., the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 2301 et seq., and the New York Lemon Law, NY. Gen. Bus. Law sec. 198-b; for deceptive business practices, NY. Gen. Bus. Law sec. 349; and for fraud. BRAM sells used cars and arranges financing for those sales. In late 2013, Jager bought a 2007 Chrysler Pacifica from BRAM and the purchase was financed by BRAM. In a Jan. 15, 2015 Opinion & Order available at http://is.gd/2XVUhvfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Louis L. Stanton ruled that: (1) Plaintiff Peter Jager's motion for partial summary judgment on the TILA claim (count I of the complaint) is granted to the extent of $2,000 and attorneys' fees. (2) Defendant Boston Road Auto Mall, Inc.'s cross-motion for partial summary judgment is granted to the extent that the Magnuson-Moss claims (counts II, III, and IV of the complaint) and the remaining state Lemon Law and common law claims (counts V, VI, and VII of the complaint) are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Peter Jager, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael Kasell, Kasell Law Firm. Boston Road Auto Mall Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeanette Marie Westphal, Law Office of Jeannette M. Westphal. BP PLC: Atty. Criticizes Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that Daniel Becnel is a longtime attorney working out of his offices in sleepy St. John the Baptist Parish, a rural suburb of New Orleans, where he has over the past 45 years built a thriving plaintiffs' firm that has increasingly been involved in class action lawsuits, most notably the Deepwater Horizon oil spill class action which he now considers to be deeply flawed. The self-proclaimed "King of Torts" has been a representative in several notable class actions including the Tobacco Master Settlement in 1998 that saw tobacco companies pay $365 million to a class of smokers. He also has been involved in the ongoing Chinese drywall class action, in which New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton is one of his clients. Mr. Becnel also leads cases against Toyota over the alleged sudden acceleration of certain vehicles. However, none of those issues have come close to that of the massive Deepwater Horizon litigation, the largest class action lawsuit in history with tens of billions of dollars in damages that is supposed to make whole hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs. Mr. Becnel was the attorney who initially filed suit in federal court only eight days after the oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 crew members and setting off the largest accidental oil spill in history that went on for 87 days, and which significantly impacted those who make their living off the coast of Louisiana and other nearby states. Just over a month after the oil spill was contained, BP began making payments through the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) -- an organization set up by BP and the U.S. government with $20 billion set aside to pay damages. Fast forward four and a half years later, and Mr. Becnel bristles at the mention of the Deepwater Horizon litigation. After his initial filing, a group of 19 attorneys from across the country (now 18 after one of the attorneys dropped out over claims he filed up to 40,000 fraudulent claims that has resulted in a federal criminal investigation), a group that did not include Mr. Becnel, were named to a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC). The PSC eventually engineered a settlement that the oil giant accepted in August 2012, which included a $660 million payday for the lawyers as well as a percentage of each claim paid out. Mr. Becnel is unyielding in his criticism of the PSC. To Mr. Becnel the goal of the PSC has been obvious in the way he says they have handled the case from the beginning. He says their actions have imperiled the entire settlement and all claimants. "In the BP case they were out to make money. And not a little bit of money, a lot of money. And I think what should happen, when you appoint a PSC you should not be allowed to solicit additional cases. You are fiduciary to all of the other class members, you are fiduciary to all of the other class counsel who handle the cases and you should not be able to do that," he said in an interview with the Louisiana Record last year. While the Court Supervised Settlement Program apparently worked as planned for the first few months, soon fissures began to form between BP and the PSC. Most notably was what BP challenged as a miscalculation of payments by court-appointed Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau. According to the oil giant, Mr. Juneau has paid millions of dollars in claims to businesses that could not show any direct connection between their loss of revenue and the oil spill. Mr. Becnel contends the PSC knowingly wrote loopholes into the settlement agreement and conspired to expand claims to those who did not deserve them. After twice being turned down by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in reviewing the payment method, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with BP that the claims payment calculation was faulty and ordered Juneau to amend how claimants are paid resulting in Policy 495, which greatly decreases payments for some claimants by creating new requirements for businesses seeking damages from the oil spill. However, the appeals court has refused to overturn the settlement, a ruling that was later denied at the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the major problems as Mr. Becnel sees it is the introduction of Policy 495 over two years after the settlement agreement was made and after billions of dollars in claims paid out changes the entire process. According to Mr. Becnel, if there was ever a class action settlement that begged for reconsideration to be overturned it was the Deepwater Horizon case. However, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to rule on the settlement, Becnel and other attorneys like him -- outside of the PSC and who number in the hundreds -- have to live with the actions taken by the PSC as the claims program continues to roll out despite what many are calling tragic flaws. BRIGHT STAR: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Ramirez" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Ramirez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Bright Star Ambulance, Inc. and Maha Khasan, Case No. 1:15-cv-01041 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendants own and operate a private ambulance company doing business 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 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: "Danner" Class Action May Proceed -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the request of Caesars Entertainment Corp. to dismiss, in its entirety, the purported class action complaint filed by Frederick Barton Danner. Judge Scheindlin granted, in part, and denied, in all other respects, the request of CEC to dismiss the complaint filed by MeehanCombs Global Credit Opportunities Funds, LP, Relative Value- Long/Short Debt, A Series of Underlying Funds Trust, SB 4 CF LLC, CFIP Ultra Master Fund, Ltd., and Trilogy Portfolio Company, LLC. Specifically, the judge said the MeehanCombs Complaint is dismissed with respect to the section 316(a) claim, without prejudice. The Court gave MeehanCombs et al. until January 29, 2015 to file an amended complaint. A conference was scheduled for February 3, 2015 at 4:30 p.m. The MeehanCombs and Danner plaintiffs are holders of notes issued by Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., pursuant to indentures, and -- until the issuance of supplemental indentures in August 2014 -- guaranteed by CEC. Plaintiffs allege that the August 2014 Transaction violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and breached the governing Indentures as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Amendments effectively left CEC free to transfer CEOC's assets without any obligation to back CEOC's debts. Furthermore, the purchase price paid for the Notes of the noteholders who approved the August 2014 Transaction, the Favored Noteholders -- par plus accrued interest and transactional fees and costs represented an extraordinary 100% premium over market. In exchange for receiving all amounts owed under their Notes, the Favored Noteholders promised to: (1) support any future restructuring proposed by Caesars; (2) consent to "the removal and acknowledgment of the termination of the CEC guarantee of the Securities"; and (iii) consent to the "modification of] the covenant restricting disposition of 'substantially all' of CEOC's assets to measure future asset sales based on CEOC's assets as of the date of the amendment." Plaintiffs contend that the August 2014 Transaction removed the Guarantees given by the asset-rich parent company, CEC, leaving plaintiffs and the other bondholders with a worthless right to collect principal and interest from the issuer, CEOC, a company divesting itself of assets and holding approximately $17 billion of senior secured debt. The crux of plaintiffs' allegations is that the release of the Guarantees effected a non-consensual change to plaintiffs' payment rights and affected plaintiffs' practical ability to recover payment in violation of section 316 of the TIA and the governing Indentures. Both defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In view of the filing of an involuntary Chapter 11 petition against CEOC, this action is stayed as to CEOC pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, this action is not stayed as to non-debtor defendant CEC. A copy of the Court's January 15, 2015 Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/OVmgD2from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs MeehanCombs, Global Credit Opportunities, Funds, LP, Relative Value-Long/Short Debt, A Series of Underlying Funds Trust, SB 4 CF LLC, CFIP Ultra Master Fund, Ltd., and Trilogy Portfolio Company, LLC, are represented by: James H. Millar, Esq. Kristin K. Going, Esq. Clay J. Pierce, Esq. Tracy S. Combs, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor New York, NY 10036-2714 Tel: (212) 248-3140 Fax: (212) 248-3141 E-mail: James.Millar@dbr.com Kristin.Going@dbr.com Clay.Pierce@dbr.com Tracy.Combs@dbr.com Plaintiff Frederick Barton Danner is represented by: Mark C. Gardy, Esq. James S. Notis, Esq. Meagan Farmer, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56 126 East 56th Street New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212 905 0509 Fax: 212 905 0508 E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com jnotis@gardylaw.com mfarmer@gardylaw.com - and - Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. Gordon Z. Novod, Esq. Elizabeth Shofner, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (646) 722-8505 E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com gnovod@gelaw.com lshofner@gelaw.com Defendant Caesars Entertainment Corporation is represented by: Lewis R. Clayton, Esq. Jonathan Hurwitz, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-373-3215 Fax: 212-492-0215 E-mail: lclayton@paulweiss.com jhurwitz@paulweiss.com Defendant Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., is represented by: Eric Seiler, Esq. Philippe Adler, Esq. Emily A. Stubbs, Esq. Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 833-1103 Fax: (212) 373-7903 E-mail: eseiler@fklaw.com padler@fklaw.com CALIFORNIA: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Butler" Petition ----------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Bernard Butler, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a petition -- RONALD BERNARD BUTLER, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, Respondent, Case No. 2:13-CV-0662-JAM-CMK-P (E.D. Cal.) -- for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, challenging a decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings that he is unsuitable for parole. The Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petition is untimely, and in the alternative, fails to state cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief and raises a challenge that is the subject of a pending class action suit. Among other things, the Respondent sought dismissal of the petitioner's petition on that ground that petitioner is a member in the Gilman class action suit addressing the same issue. The case at issue, Gilman v. Brown, is an Eastern District of California case, number 2:05-cv-0830-LKK-CKD. In Gilman, California state prisoners serving a life term with the possibility of parole brought a civil rights class action and alleged that Marsy's Law violated the Ex Post Facto clause. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Ninth Circuit found that Proposition 9 "appear[s] to create a significant risk of prolonging plaintiffs incarceration." At the same time, the Court found that the availability of advanced hearings "would remove any possibility of harm to prisoners because they would not be required to wait a minimum of three years for a hearing." Reversing the injunction, the Court found that the plaintiffs were not "likely to succeed on the merits of their ex post facto claim." The trial court certified the Gilman class in March 2009, then addressed the definition of the certified class. On review, Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison finds that Petitioner Butler satisfies the definition for class membership in Gilman's certified class as he is (1) a California state prisoner; (2) sentenced to a term of life in prison with the possibility of parole; and (3) sentenced before the November 8, 2008, effective date of Proposition 9. Petitioner has alleged that he has opted out of the Gilman class, and that he seeks relief different and beyond that sought by the class. However, the relief he seeks is not different and beyond that sought by the class, Judge Kellison opines. Moreover, the Petitioner failed to provide any indication that he requested permission from the Gilman court to opt out of that action, the judge continues. Accordingly, Judge Kellison recommends that respondent's motion to dismiss be granted. Judge Kellison's findings and recommendations dated Jan. 16, 2015, available at http://is.gd/FZiXqdfrom Leagle.com, were submitted to the U.S. District Judge assigned to the case. Ronald Bernard Butler, Petitioner, Pro Se. Gary Swarthout, Warden, Respondent, represented by Maria G. Chan, California Attorney General's Office. CATERPILLAR INC: Ex-Employees Reinstated in Insurance Plan ---------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit JUDITH K. KERNS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CATERPILLAR INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UAW, et al., Third-Party Defendants, CASE NO. 3:06-CV-1113 (M.D. Tenn.) is class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of surviving spouses of former employees of Caterpillar, Inc. who retired on or after March 16, 1998, and before January 10, 2005. The case is before a Tennessee district court on cross motions for summary judgment on the claims brought by eight individual class members against Caterpillar. In a Jan. 16, 2015 Memorandum available at http://is.gd/KrXWU4 from Leagle.com, District Judge Aleta Trauger granted the motion of plaintiffs Beverly Carson, Wilma Farrenholz, Hattie Grace, Sharon Houser, Laura Mansfield, Florence Miller, Charlotte Seibert, and Nancy Virden for summary judgment. The court will enter judgment for each of these plaintiffs and will order Caterpillar to re-enroll each of them in its insurance plan without premiums and in keeping with the terms of the 1988 GIP and the 1992 unilateral implementation. Judith K. Kerns, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa M. Smith -- lsmith@michworklaw.com -- Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel C. McKnight -- smcknight@michworklaw.com -- Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel Morris, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC, Deborah Godwin, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC & Joseph J. Torres -- jtorres@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn. Marcia Nalley, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa M. Smith, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel C. McKnight, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel Morris, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC & Deborah Godwin, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC. Sandra L. Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa M. Smith, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel C. McKnight, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C., Samuel Morris, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC & Deborah Godwin, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, PC. Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Columbus R. Gangemi, Jr. -- cgangemi@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Derek Grady Barella -- dbarella@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Joseph J. Torres -- jtorres@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn, Lawrence Slade Eastwood, Jr. -- leastwood@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC & Heather S. Lehman -- hlehman@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP. UAW Local Union No. 1086, Third Party Defendant, represented by David W. Garrison -- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com --, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Edmund L. Carey, Jr. -- ecarey@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Joshua B. Shiffrin, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Julia Penny Clark, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, W. Gary Kohlman, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Lisa M. Smith, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C. & Matthew Clash-Drexler, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Counter Plaintiff, represented by Edmund L. Carey, Jr., Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Joshua B. Shiffrin, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Julia Penny Clark, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, W. Gary Kohlman, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Lisa M. Smith, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C. & Matthew Clash-Drexler, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC. UAW Local Union No. 1086, Counter Plaintiff, represented by Edmund L. Carey, Jr., Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Joshua B. Shiffrin, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Julia Penny Clark, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, W. Gary Kohlman, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Lisa M. Smith, Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C. & Matthew Clash-Drexler, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC. CENTRAL GARDEN: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Dylan Obrecht, Shelby Stinson, Mackenzie Stafford and Grace Gilbert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central Garden & Pet Company, Case No. 4:15-cv-00046 (N.D. Fla., January 29, 2015), arises out of the false and misleading products labeling of AvoDerm Natural as natural pet food product, when in fact, it contains synthetic and artificial chemical compounds including but not limited to tocopherols, ascorbic acid, lecithin, ferrous sulfate, manganese sulfate, and copper sulfate. Central Garden & Pet Company is a Delaware corporation that manufactures, markets and labels pet food products named AvoDerm Natural. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA 2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 298-4455 Facsimile: (850) 216-2537 E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Accused of Sex Discrimination in W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Bellamy v. Central Intelligence Agency, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00087-SS (W.D. Tex., February 2, 2015) accuses the Defendant of failing to provide accommodations for the Plaintiff's disabilities in its recruitment process; discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of his disabilities, as well as on the basis of sex. The Plaintiff, a resident of Grandville, Michigan, is not represented by any law firm. CGG LAND: "Sharp" Claim Wins Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit R. DANE SHARP, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. CGG LAND (U.S.) INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-0614-CVE-TLW (N.D. Okla.), was brought against the defendant on allegations of violations of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(a) by the failure to pay the correct overtime pay. CGG Land is a corporation involved in seismic surveying. Dane Sharp worked for CGG as a truck driver and a vibe operator for about four years. In a Jan. 14, 2015 Opinion and Order available at http://is.gd/w6WR8ifrom Leagle.com, District Judge Claire V. Eagan ruled, among others, that: (1) Plaintiff's motion for first stage collective action certification, for Court authorized notice, and for disclosure of the names, addresses and dates of employment of the potential opt-in plaintiffs is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to plaintiff's requests for first stage conditional certification of a class of potential plaintiffs, for notice to potential class members, and for production by defendant of the contact information of members of that class. The motion is denied as to plaintiff's requests that defendant include copies of the notice in employees' pay envelopes or W-2 mailings. (2) Plaintiff's claim is conditionally certified as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216. The class of potential plaintiffs in the collective action shall be limited to: All of defendant's current and former hourly non-exempt employees who were entitled to be paid overtime premiums under the FLSA and who received at least one cash "hot shot" payment in the three years (plus 21 days) preceding the date the collective action is certified. R Dane Sharp, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Jess Vince Hightower -- jvh255@aol.com CGG Land (U.S.) Inc., Defendant, represented by Laurence E Stuart -- lstuart@stuartpc.com -- Stuart PC & Michael J McDaniel, Coffey Senger & McDaniel PLLC. CHYRONHEGO CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Illegal Company Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Allaria and Jill Allaria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chyronhego Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00471 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), alleges that the Defendants disseminate false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the proposed sale of ChyronHego Corporation to Vector CH Holdings. Chyronhego Corporation is a New York corporation that is considered as a global leader in broadcast graphics creation, playout, and real-time visualization offering a wide variety of products and services for live television, news, and sports production. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Brandon Walker, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 Facsimile: (212) 751-2540 E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com CKL T TRADING: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jorge Rojas and Profirio Reyes, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CKL T Trading Inc., Kwok Keung Cheung, Mei Kan Cheng, and Mei Ting Cheng, Case No. 1:15-cv-00442 (E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages prejudgment and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants own and operate a wholesale food delivery business, located at 530 63rd Street, Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com CLEANNET USA: "Sanchez" Plaintiffs Ordered to Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action JOSE SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLEANNET USA, INC. and CLEANNET OF ILLINOIS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 14-C- 2143 (N.D. Ill.), arose out of Plaintiff Jose Sanchez's participation as a franchisee in a nationwide network of commercial cleaning franchised businesses. The 8-count Complaint alleged that franchisor Defendants CleanNet U.S.A., Inc. and CleanNet of Illinois, Inc. improperly classified him and other franchisees as independent contractors instead of employees, thereby depriving them of the benefits of an employment relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sec. 201 et seq., the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq., and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants engaged in fraud in the inducement to entice him to enter into the franchise agreement, and that Defendants violated the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, 815 ILCS 705/1 et seq. CleanNet USA is a master franchisor whose brand of commercial cleaning franchises is represented by area operators, such as CleanNet IL, that offer unit franchises to investors interested in owning and operating a commercial cleaning business. Jose Sanchez is a Spanish speaker with a limited education who, along with his brother-in-law, purchased a "package" of $2,500 in monthly billing for a franchise price of $11,800. They paid $6,000 in money they borrowed for the franchise and CleanNet IL financed the remaining $5,800 at 9%. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay Sanchez's complaint pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sec. 1 et seq. ("FAA"), on the ground that his individual claims are subject to final and binding arbitration pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions in his franchise agreement. District Judge James B. Zagel granted the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and the case is dismissed. A copy of the District Court's Jan. 15, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/mm3bRMfrom Leagle.com Jose Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J Williams, Workers' Law Office, PC, Yolanda Carrillo, Working Hands Legal Clinic, Alvar Ayala, Workers' Law Office, P.C., Jenee Gaskin, Workers' Law Office, P.c. & Lydia Colunga-Merchant, Working Hands Legal Clinic. Cleannet USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Darren Mason Mungerson -- dmungerson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Francis P. Tighe, III -- ftighe@littler.com -- Frank P. Tighe, III. Cleannet of Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Darren Mason Mungerson, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Francis P. Tighe, III, Frank P. Tighe, III. COURTESY CAR: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Schlosser, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Courtesy Car Rental of Minnesota, Inc., Case No. 0:15- cv-00431-PAM-HB (D. Minn., February 3, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com COVELLI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Violation of ADA ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Covelli Enterprises d/b/a Panera Bread, Case No. 2:15-cv-00120 (W.D. Pa., January 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101. Covelli Enterprises the single largest franchisee of Panera Bread restaurants and operates more than 250 Panera Bread locations in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Florida and Ontario, Canada. Defendant is headquartered at 3900 East Market Street, Warren, Ohio 44484. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com www.carlsonlynch.com CVA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Marvin A. Ruiz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CVA, Inc. d/b/a Charlie's Family Restaurant, Charlie Alevrofas a/k/a Sakellarious Alevrofas and Victoria Alevrofas, Case No. 8:15-cv-00312 (D. Md., February 3, 2015) is brought on behalf of this class of potential opt-in litigants -- Individuals, who at any time during the Collective Action Period: (1) were employed by the Defendants at an hourly rate; (2) were paid a biweekly salary; (3) worked more than 40 hours in at least one work week of the Collective Action Period; and (4) were not paid for overtime work at the required overtime rate. CVA is a Maryland corporation that operates a restaurant located in Ft. Washington (Prince George's County), Maryland. The Individual Defendants are owners, agents or principals of CVA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto N. Allen, Esq. Alvaro A. Llosa, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN, LLC 11002 Veirs Mill Rd., Suite 700 Wheaton, MD 20902 Telephone: (301) 861-0202 Facsimile: (301) 861-4395 E-mail: rallen@robertoallenlaw.com allosa@robertoallenlaw.com D.R. HORTON: Rancho De Paz Homeowners' Class Allegations Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- Nevada District Judge James C. Mahan granted D.R. Horton's motion to dismiss plaintiff's class action allegations in the case, AZURE MANOR/RANCHO DE PAZ HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff(s), v. D.R. HORTON, INC., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:14-CV-2222 JCM (NJK)(D. Nev.). A copy of Judge Mahan's January 27, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/9ACe97from Leagle.com. Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association, Plaintiff, represented by Anna Mirijanian, Angius & Terry, LLP, Paul P. Terry, Jr, Angius & Terry LLP & Scott P Kelsey, Angius & Terry LLP. D.R. Horton, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel D. Odou, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP & Anthony S Wong, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman. DRESSMAN BENZINGER: Class Deal in "Lavelle" Suit Gets Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Susan J. Dlott granted final approval of a settlement agreement reached in the lawsuit JANET GREEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DRESSMAN BENZINGER LAVELLE, PSC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-00142- SJD, (S.D. Ohio). The class complaint asserts class claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Ohio Court certified, for settlement purposes only, the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of "All persons throughout the state of Ohio to whom Dressman Benzinger Lavelle, PSC mailed or caused to be mailed, between February 13, 2013 and February 12, 2014, in connection with an attempt to collect a consumer debt, a communication by U.S. mail contained in an envelope with the name 'DBL Collections' on the outside of it." There are believed to be 401 Class Members. The Court certifies Plaintiff Janet Green as the Class Representative. James L. Davidson of Greenwald Davidson PLLC is certified as Class Counsel. Ronald S. Weiss of the Law Offices of Ronald S. Weiss is certified as Liaison Counsel. The Class Settlement provides for a $12,500 settlement fund to be established by the Defendant. Each Class Member who has not excluded himself or herself from the Class will receive a pro rata share from the Fund. Plaintiff Janet Green will receive from Defendant the sum of $1,000 for her work in pursuing these claims and securing a recovery for the Cilass. This payment shall be separate and apart from the Settlement Fund and her pro-rata share of the same. Defendant will pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the amount of $30,000, separate and apart from the Settlement Fund and the Incentive Award to Plaintiff. A copy of the Court's Jan. 16, 2015 Final Order and Judgment is available for free at http://is.gd/NiM8Unfrom Leagle.com. James L. Davidson, Greenwald Davidson PLLC -- jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Boca Raton, FL, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class Counsel. Ronald S. Weiss, Law Offices of Ronald S. Weiss, West Bloomfield, MI, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Liaison Counsel. George S. Coakley, Esq. -- george@coakleylammert.com -- Coakley+Lammert Co. LPA, Cleveland, Ohio, Attorneys for Defendant. DRUG-FREE WORKFORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Edilma Aguilar v. Drug-Free Workforce, Inc., and Jen F. Yavitz, Case No. 1:15-cv-20382-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 2, 2015) alleges that the Defendants failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages calculated at time and one-half of her regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a given workweek. Drug-Free Workforce, Inc., is a for profit Florida company that has operated its restaurant business here, in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Jen F. Yavitz is the owner and operator of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 Facsimile: (305) 230-4844 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com ELIASEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Arlos Mejia, Juan Martinez-Rojas, and Sebastian Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eliasen Environmental, Inc., Florida Landscape Mgt, LLC, Todd Eliasen Individually, Michelle Eliasen, Individually, and Ronald D. Webb, Case No. 8:15-cv-00209 (M.D. Fla., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a construction and landscape company in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA 501 N Reo St Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Normarily Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Financial Recoveries and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:15-cv-00753-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., February 2, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com FLEXXRAY LLC: Faces "Viveros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacinto Viveros, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. Flexxray LLC, and Donald Ernest Forrest, Case No. 3:15- cv-00294 (N.D. Tex., January 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants own and operate an advanced inspection services company that regularly transacts business within Dallas County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net zabogado@aol.com josh.a.petersen@gmail.com FLINT, MI: Water Treatment Issues May Spur Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Ron Fonger and Kurt Nagl, writing for MLive, report that the problems started after the push of a button, a toast with Flint River water and a budget forecast of saving $5 million that had to be tempting for a city in the midst of a financial emergency. It was only nine months ago that Flint officials turned off the flow of already-treated Lake Huron water from the city of Detroit and started treating their own raw water from the Flint River instead, calculating that the switch could save roughly $5 million in less than two years. But what started as a cost-cutting move for a city in financial turmoil has turned into a growing demonstration of public unrest, as customers are rebelling against the most troubled and expensive public water system in Genesee County. Well-known environmental activist Erin Brockovich has weighed in on the saga, and now some City Council members say they're ready to abandon the use of river water -- regardless of the short-term savings tied to using it. Even Mayor Dayne Walling, who pushed the ceremonial button that changed Flint's water source in late April, said that in hindsight, he now believes the challenges of treating river water were "underestimated" by those who made the decision. He said that the city is paying the price for not having been prepared to take on the job of turning river water into drinking water. "The outside assistance -- (contracting with a water quality consultant) with experience in river water management -- should have been (done) months ago in retrospect," Mayor Walling said. "It should have been part of the plan from the beginning." The most vocal outcry against Flint water problems began earlier in January, when the city told customers it was in violation of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act because of the high level of total trihalomethanes (TTHM), a byproduct of the large amount of chlorine needed to kill off bacteria in the river water. The notice -- sent to customers throughout the city -- has prompted street protests, meetings, bottled water drives and talk of a class action lawsuit. Some residents have presented city officials at public meetings with jugs of yellow, cloudy water from their faucets, saying the water is causing health issues. "A lot of people are moving away. They are fed up, and the ones that can afford it will leave the city," said Florlisa Fowler, a Flint resident who started a Facebook page -- Flint Water Class Action Group, which now has more than 1,300 members. "This should never have been allowed to happen," Ms. Fowler said. "I feel like they knew what was going to happen." Initially, city documents show Flint officials planned to use that $5 million short-term savings to make upgrades at the Flint Water Treatment Plant and to start something that had been ignored for decades -- replacing some aging water transmission pipes and valves before connecting to the Karegnondi Water Authority pipeline sometime in 2016. Flint's capital improvement plan estimates $50 million in water infrastructure spending is needed during the next six years -- money the city doesn't have. Documents posted recently on Flint's Web site say the city believed it was prepared to deal with the challenges of treating river water because of its licensed staff, the experience of its contract engineering company, help from the state Department of Environmental Quality, and the past investments in equipment at the city's treatment plant. At the time of the switch, city and state officials assured residents they wouldn't notice a difference in the smell or taste of tap water once the river was tapped. Instead, citizens began complaining almost immediately about the smell, color and taste of river water, and within four months, boil water advisories were issued for parts of the city after tests showed bacteria, including E.coli, in the water system. The city cleared up the bacteria problem by upping the level of disinfectant and implementing other changes. The city was forced to open fire hydrants in the summer and fall to keep water from growing stagnant in a system that's twice as big as it should be for the number of customers using it. Then in October, the city was dealt another blow when General Motors said it would no longer use Flint water in one of its plants because high chloride levels were causing corrosion in engine parts. State and local officials have said Flint's water is safe to drink for most people, but the notices mailed to customers about TTHM levels this year caused worries. The notices warn those with "a severely compromised immune system, (who) have an infant or are elderly" that they "may be at increased risk and should seek advice about drinking water from your health care provider." The same notice says the disinfection byproduct in city water could -- over many years -- cause liver, kidney or central nervous system problems and an increased risk of cancer. At protests, public meetings and on social media, some residents have blamed the water on ailments ranging from rashes to cancer. But the county Health Department's chief officer has said he drinks it and said customers don't have much to be worried about -- partly because people won't be drinking large amounts of the water for decades. Dr. Joan Rose of Michigan State University, told residents that TTHM isn't the cause of cloudy, discolored water she saw at a town hall meeting but is more likely related to Flint's old transmission pipes. Skin problems could be related to the hardness of Flint's treated water, Dr. Rose said. Amid the city's water issues, Flint's colleges told employees and students they would be independently testing the water to try to allay concerns. Flint's hospitals also have made adjustments ranging from offering bottled water to specially treating equipment that requires softer water. Flint resident Cindy Marshall, who attended a protest Jan. 21, said all she wants is "clean, safe water." "I am paying over $130 in water bills, plus $150 in store-bought water," she said. "I won't let my dog drink it or my fish swim in it. "I wish Flint officials would give us our Detroit water back," she added. The city's water problems have caught the attention of Brockovich, an environmental activist who says officials from Flint to Washington, D.C., need to fix the water and stop making excuses. "Now is not the time for the blame game . . . Detroit has failed and Flint jumped ship. So much for local control . . . everyone is responsible from the top down," she said on her Facebook page. MLive-The Flint Journal could not reach emergency manager Jerry Ambrose or Department of Public Works Director Howard Croft for comment on whether they believe the savings tied to using river water has been worth the resulting fallout. Dr. Walling said the decision to use river water last year was made by emergency manager Darnell Earley, but the mayor said he was involved in the decision for the city to join the Karegnondi Water Authority in 2013. "The governor and the (state) treasurer to their credit recognized it was important for the city's elected representatives to be included in the decision about the long-term source (of water) because we would be living with it," he said. "But once the decision was made in April 2013, it become an operational issue . . . and I wasn't directly involved." "I wasn't directly involved in the city's (decision) to use the Flint River as a source," he said. "It's now clear that the challenge was underestimated." Ms. Walling blamed the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department for terminating Flint's contract to purchase Lake Huron water while the KWA pipeline is under construction. "I do think it bears repeating that it was DWSD that terminated the contract with the city of Flint," he said. "DWSD put the city of Flint in a difficult position when they terminated that contract we had for decades and decades . . . My goal had always been to have a cooperative relationship with DWSD but every opportunity that was looked at ended with a barrier." A return to purchasing water from Detroit while the KWA project is completed is something that City Council President Josh Freeman said he's willing to consider, but Earley and Ambrose have said it's too expensive of an option and said a short-term deal might not even be possible. DWSD made an offer for a "long-term" deal for water in a Jan. 12 letter to Flint's mayor and emergency manager, but it wasn't immediately clear whether the arrangement offered by Detroit was also available for a relatively short-term period. Flint officials claim the use of Detroit water this year alone would cost Flint an additional $12 million. "I'm open to explore going back to Detroit, but it's not as easy as going and switching a switch," Freeman said. "I drink the water. I shower in it, but I get the smell (issues). I taste the difference." The combination of discoloration, strong smells from water and boil water and Safe Drinking Water notices from the city have combined to create both legitimate problems and a crisis in confidence, Freeman and Walling said. GM retiree Dale Radford said he doesn't see the difference in his water with the naked eye but he's recently started buying his drinking water in 5-gallon jugs. "I know they say it's safe to drink but I think everybody is kind of worried about it," Mr. Radford said. "I don't think the water tastes the same. I think the coffee in the morning tastes different. "I think they should have worked it so we kept the same water, but Mr. after all is said and done, we're stuck with what we've got," Radford said. GEM PAVER: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Efrain Gomez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Gem Paver Systems, LLC, Jorge Fernandez, Case No. 1:15-cv-20425-DLG (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2015) alleges that the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Gem Paver Systems, LLC, is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County. Jorge Fernandez is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com GLOBAL STRUCTURES: Faces "Kernes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Kernes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Global Structures, LLC and John J. Hildreth, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00659 (S.D.N.Y., January 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Global Structures, LLC is a design to build company that provides turnkey structural services to the real estate community. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Stedman Clark, Esq. LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC Empire State Builidng, 350 Fifith Avenue, Suite 6902 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 967-3000 Facsimile: (212) 967-3010 E-mail: jclark@levineblit.com GOLD RESOURCE: 10th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a class action by investors in Gold Resource Corp. (GRC) alleging that the company and four of its officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to draw a strong inference of scienter under the heightened pleading standard of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The claims against the defendants arose out of GRC's mining operations in Mexico. Plaintiffs alleged that GRC and the defendants intentionally inflated GRC's production statistics by counting provisional invoices for sales of ore as revenue. These invoices were revised when final samples of the ore were taken and, due to "significant" differences between the provisional invoices and the final sample, the actual sale price of the ore was significantly lower than the provisional invoice, forcing GRC to restate its earnings for the first two quarters of 2012. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knew of but "intentionally ignored" infrastructure problems that would affect production in the second quarter of 2012. The US District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the suit for failing to plead scienter. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding that there were other equally plausible non-fraudulent explanations for the defendants' conduct. In regard to the financial restatements, the court, emphasizing that Section 10(b) requires that the defendants' statements be made at least recklessly, not merely negligently, determined that a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) violation alone was not sufficient for an inference of scienter without other violations or irregularities. The court regarded the defendants' explanation, that the discrepancy in measurement taken in Mexico was not immediately known by the management and not disclosed until confirmed by an investigation, at least as plausible as plaintiffs' inference of scienter. Further, the court rejected plaintiffs' arguments regarding the infrastructure problems of the mines, emphasizing that mining difficulties were unforeseen by the defendants and an inherent risk of the industry. In re Gold Resource Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 13-1323 (10th Cir. Jan. 16, 2015). GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Wolf, writing for Law360, reports that GovSimplified LLC, an online customer service specialist, was hit with a putative class action in Florida state court on Jan. 21 for allegedly deceiving consumers into thinking it was a government website and charging a premium price for something site visitors could otherwise obtain for free. An Illinois resident, who allegedly purchased an IRS Employment Identification Number through GovSimplfied last December, filed suit against the company in Miami-Dade County, where the business is located, claiming she was misled into thinking the site was affiliated with the federal government. Kelsey O'Brien's complaint alleges the company uses deceptive domain names, layouts similar to government sites, and hard-to- read disclaimers to lure in customers. She is seeking to form a class of the allegedly thousands of others across the country who have also been deceived into purchasing EIN numbers through the site. "Defendant knew and intended that consumers would pay a price premium for its product if consumers believed defendant's website is faster than obtaining an EIN through the United States government website," the complaint states. "Defendant also does not inform consumers that they may apply for an EIN for free over the Internet, over the phone, or by facsimile." According to the complaint, Ms. O'Brien purchased an EIN through the GovSimplified website sometime in December 2014. Only after purchasing did she discover that EINs can be obtained through the IRS website for free and be received immediately after applications have been fully and accurately filled out. The complaint states Ms. O'Brien would not have purchased the EIN through GovSimplified if she had been aware it could be obtained at no cost from the IRS. Ms. O'Brien argues that the site's appearance and its URL, which includes the affix "ein-gov.us," is made to deceive consumers into thinking it is affiliated with the government. Her complaint states the website also makes no mention that an EIN can be obtained for free. A subsequent check on the website showed that the disclaimer actually does say an EIN can be obtained for free from the IRS. The complaint accuses the company of violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for unjust enrichment. O'Brien and the putative class are seeking an injunction against GovSimplifed as well as compensation for the money they paid the company and to cover legal costs. The GovSimplified website is billed as a service that makes the process of applying for EINs simpler and faster than going through a government website. The company charges either $129, $147 or $197 depending on how quickly the customer wants the number. A spokeswoman for GovSimplified told Law360 on Jan. 23 that the company had not yet been notified of the complaint, but said they strive to provide 100 percent customer satisfaction for people who experience errors when applying for EINs directly with the IRS. She added that the company does maintain a disclaimer on each of its sites and doesn't understand how its websites could be mistaken for government websites. Kelsey O'Brien and the putative class are represented by Andrew B. Boese -- aboese@leoncosgrove.com -- of Leon Cosgrove LLC and Jana Eisinger -- eisinger@mlgrouppc.com -- of Martinez Law Group P.C. The case is Kelsey O'Brien et al v. GovSimplified in Florida's Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The case number was not immediately available. HARVARD DRUG: Offer of Judgment Doesn't Moot Case, 11th Cir. Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, ruled that a putative class action does not become moot when a defendant offers a judgment in favor of the only named plaintiff and putative class representative and the plaintiff declines the offer. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint in the case, SCOTT BARR, DDS on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. THE HARVARD DRUG GROUP, LLC, a Michigan corporation d.b.a. Expert-Med, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-13138 (11th Cir.). A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's January 29, 2015 per curiam decision is available at http://is.gd/1gG53jfrom Leagle.com. Scott Barr, DDS, filed a putative class action against The Harvard Drug Company, LLC (HDC) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. HOME DEPOT: Alcoa Community Suit Included in Security Breach MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union v. Home Depot Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00039, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00330-TWT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT. The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data network in late April or early May 2014. The data network contained the personal financial information of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The data breach was first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security blogger. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Roberts, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle P.O. Box 241790 Little Rock, AR 72223-1790 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us HOME LOAN SERVICING: Sued in SDNY Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Oliveira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., William C. Erbey, John P. Van Vlack, and, James E. Lauter, Case No. 1:15-cv-00652 (S.D.N.Y., January 29, 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. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. is headquartered and incorporated in the Cayman Islands and engages in the acquisition of mortgage servicing assets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Richard Horne, Esq. Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. Phillip C. Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 00000 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 Facsimile: (212) 836-6407 E-mail: jhorne@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Faces "Luparello" Class Suit in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Luparello, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00759-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., February 3, 2015) is brought on behalf of all members enrolled in Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey Preferred Provider Organization health insurance, who received covered emergency medical services from out-of-network providers and were billed for the balance of unpaid benefits to those services. Horizon is a not-for-profit health services corporation organized in New Jersey and headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shelly A. Leonard, Esq. Steven Bennett Blau, Esq. BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC 23 Green Street, Suite 303 NEW YORK, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 458-1010 Facsimile: (631) 458-1011 E-mail: sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com sblau@blauleonardlaw.com IMAGEONE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Bolstridge" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bolstridge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ImageOne Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00477-JS (E.D. Pa., February 2, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Patrick Murphy, Jr., Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC One Penn Center, Suite 1230 1617 John F Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 375-0961 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com INOVASI RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raymundo Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Inovasi Restaurants, LLC and John Des Rosiers, Case No. 1:15-cv-01042 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant within the State of 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 INVENSENSE INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of InvenSense, Inc. on Jan. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of InvenSense common stock between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, inclusive. Investors who have losses of $100,000 or more are encouraged to contact the firm for more information. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. InvenSense designs, develops and markets micro-electro-mechanical system gyroscopes for motion tracking devices in consumer electronics. The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (a) the Company had entered into an agreement with Apple, Inc. to supply sensors for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus at heavily discounted prices compared to other customers; (b) the low prices charged to Apple, along with low prices charged to Samsung, had, and would continue to, negatively impact the Company's margins; (c) InvenSense encountered manufacturing problems and inefficiencies which negatively impacted margins; (d) the Company lacked a reasonable basis to provide its stated near- term financial guidance or to assure investors that margins would be consistent with historical levels; (e) the Company's Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2015 failed to disclose then-known trends, events or uncertainties associated with the Company's sales and margins that were reasonably likely to have a material effect on InvenSense's future operating results; and (f), as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's financial performance and outlook during the Class Period. On October 28, 2014, the Company reported disappointing financial results for its second fiscal quarter ended September 28, 2014, including net revenue of $90.2 million and a net loss of $6.868 million. The Company also reported, among other things, disappointing GAAP gross margins of only 35% and non-GAAP gross margins of 37%, compared with GAAP gross margins of 47% and non- GAAP gross margins of 50% in the first quarter of fiscal 2015. Following this news, InvenSense shares declined 25%, or $5.40 per share, to a closing price of $16.08 per share on October 29, 2014, on unusually heavy volume. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later March 9, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you suffered losses of $100,000 or more and wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. JP MORGAN: Attempts to Abusively Collect a Debt, Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Madeline Montry and Rebecca Burlingame individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1; and the Law Offices of Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C., Case No. 3:15-cv-00223-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 3, 2015) challenges the alleged actions of the Defendants with regard to their attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiffs. Patenaude and Felix is located and does business in the City of San Diego, California. All defendants, other than JP Morgan Chase Bank, are persons who use an instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Hyde, Esq. Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com KARYN'S FRESH: Violates FLSA and IMWL, "Henriquez" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Henriquez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Karyn's Fresh Corner Cafe, Inc., and Karyn Calabrese, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-01096 (N.D. Ill., February 3, 2015) seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Karyn's Fresh Corner Cafe, Inc. is an Illinois corporation. Karyn Calabrese is the president of the Company. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food preparer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com KPMG LLP: 1,000+ Female Employees Join Pay Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Cohn, writing for Accounting Today, reports that more than 1,000 former and current KPMG female employees have joined a pay discrimination class-action suit against the firm. Notices went out last October about the suit to approximately 9,000 of the firm's former and current women employees. They were given 120 days to respond and there is a week left in the opt-in period, according to the law firm that filed the suit, Sanford Heisler Kimpel LLP in Washington, D.C. Of the more than 1,000 women who have joined the pay discrimination class action against KPMG, over 17 percent are current employees. A former KPMG senior manager, Donna Kassman, filed suit against the Big Four firm in 2011, claiming she was repeatedly denied promotion after returning from maternity leave (see KPMG Sued for Gender Discrimination). Four other female employees -- Linda O'Donnell, Sparkle Patterson, Jeanette Potter and Ashwini Vasudeva -- later joined the $400 million class-action lawsuit, and now the number is in excess of 1,000. Women comprise approximately half of KPMG's employees, according to the plaintiffs, but only 18 percent are partners. "In our experience, having over a thousand women join is a remarkable response," said Sanford Heisler Kimpel managing partner Katherine M. Kimpel -- kkimpel@sanfordheisler.com -- in a statement. "The Big Four accounting field is filled with individuals who, even more than the average American, find suing an employer particularly scary, perhaps because of all the hard work and long hours they have dedicated to their careers. That more than a thousand women have nonetheless taken the step to stand up against KPMG's discriminatory practices is a testament not only to their courage but also to how deeply rooted the problems at KPMG are. I have no doubt that many more women will be joining us between now and the January 31, 2015 deadline." KPMG pointed out that the number of women who have joined the suit is still relatively low. "Two facts about the claims made by the plaintiff speak louder than any others: almost 90 percent of those eligible to have joined this lawsuit chose not to do so; and almost 85 percent of the small number that did join are not current KPMG employees," said KPMG spokesman Manuel Goncalves. "That is because the allegations that have been made are without merit, which KPMG confirmed after thoroughly and repeatedly reviewing the matter. "KPMG has long been recognized as a great place to work and build a career, as well as a leader in fostering a diverse and inclusive culture," he added. "The firm is deeply committed to the career advancement of women and confronting the challenges women too often face in the workplace, and takes very seriously any concern about discrimination or unfair treatment. We could not be more proud of our culture and the fact that KPMG is replete with and led by many talented and successful women." LA FOGATA: Removes "Somarriba" Suit to Florida District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Somarriba v. La Fogata Charcoal's Latin Grill, Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-000282-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20381-DLG to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage compensation and damages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (786) 464-0841 Facsimile: (954) 790-6722 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Pedro P. Forment, Esq. Mendy Halberstam, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 Facsimile: (305) 373-4466 E-mail: pedro.forment@jacksonlewis.com mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc., on Jan. 22 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of LeapFrog securities between May 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, inclusive. Please contact Lesley Portnoy or Casey Sadler at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. LeapFrog is a developer of educational entertainment for children. The Company's product portfolio consists of multimedia learning platforms and related content, and learning toys. The Company has developed a number of learning platforms, including the LeapPad family of learning tablets, the Leapster family of handheld learning game systems, and the LeapReader reading and writing systems. The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was experiencing a decline in consumer demand; (2) the launch and shipment of the Company's new LeapTV video game system were delayed by developmental issues; (3) retailers were overstocked with the Company's LeapPad products; (4) as a result, the Company lacked a reasonable basis for its financial guidance; and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 22, 2015, after the close of trading, LeapFrog announced preliminary financial results for its 2014 fiscal third quarter. These financial results were significantly below the Company's stated expectations and financial guidance. According to the Company, LeapFrog's disappointing sales results were related to decreased demand for its products and development issues with the Company's LeapTV educational video game system. Following this news, shares of LeapFrog declined nearly 35%, to close on January 23, 2015, at $2.55 per share, on unusually heavy volume. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court, no later than 60 days from January 22, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, or Casey Sadler, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Ebarle" Action Over Deceptive Advertising -------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 19 against Lifelock, Inc. alleged the identity theft protection company engaged in deceptive advertising. Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm alleged LifeLock had frequent service delays, failed to maintain technology capable of performing the security it advertised and didn't cancel accounts for customers when requested. The lawsuit alleged LifeLock's founder Richard Todd Davis had his identity stolen 13 times after posting his own Social Security number in advertisements in 2006. Mr. Ebarle said he began using LifeLock services in 2012 and paid approximately $40 a month to the company, which was supposed to protect himself, his wife and two children. Mr. Ebarle alleged he had suspicious activity on his account, but did not receive notification from LifeLock as promised. Ms. Stamm said she has used LifeLock since 2008 because the company advertised that it would submit fraud alerts to creditors in her name. The lawsuit alleged LifeLock doesn't have that capability. The suit seeks class status and an undisclosed amount of damages to the class members. Mr. Ebarle and Ms. Stamm are represented by Joseph H. Bates of Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC. United States District Court for the Northern District of California case number 3:15-cv-00258 LHR INC: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Gavriel Jerusalem, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. LHR, Inc. d/b/a Lewis Hastie Receivables, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00744-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., February 2, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC 1669 East 12th Street Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com LS IMPORT: Recalls Push Toys Due to Chocking Hazard --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with LS Import, of Houston, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 660 airplane and butterfly push toys. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The wheels of the airplane and the balls at the tip of the butterfly's antenna can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. This recall involves plastic airplane and butterfly push toys. The airplane push toy is red and has a blue, yellow and red rotor above the cockpit's canopy and eyelids on the nose of the airplane that open and shut when the toy is been pushed on the floor. The airplane push toy has a pink plastic rod with a handle that connects to the back of the toy to push it. The butterfly push toy's body is yellow with pink wings and has a pink plastic ball at the end of each of two antennas and a pair of wings that flap up and down when the toy is been pushed on the floor. The butterfly push toy has a green plastic rod with a handle that connects to the back of the toy to push it. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/jHrjK2. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at LS Import stores in Houston, Texas from May 2014 through July 2014 for between $1 and $2. Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from children and contact LS Import for a full refund. M&G POLYMERS: S.C. Tossed Contribution-Free Health Care Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Barbara Leonard reports that retirees failed to persuade the Supreme Court on January 26 that they and their families deserve permanent contribution-free health care benefits. Hobert Freel Tackett led the class action in Columbus, Ohio, against M&G Polymers USA after its December 2006 announcement that M&G retirees would need to start making health care contributions. After a bench trial, a federal judge said the retirees should get health care for life without contributions and ordered them reinstated to the post-2007 benefits plans. The 6th Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction in 2013, but the Supreme Court vacated that ruling on January 26 after taking up the case last year. "We interpret collective-bargaining agreements, including those establishing ERISA plans, according to ordinary principles of contract law, at least when those principles are not inconsistent with federal labor policy," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the unanimous court, abbreviating the name of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The 6th Circuit's ruling for the retirees had relied on the 1983 decision from a union's case against Yard-Man Inc., "to conclude that, in the absence of extrinsic evidence to the contrary, the provisions of the contract indicated an intent to vest retirees with lifetime benefits," Thomas noted. But the high court now clarified that "those inferences conflict with ordinary principles of contract law." "As an initial matter, Yard-Man violates ordinary contract principles by placing a thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree benefits in all collective-bargaining agreements," Thomas wrote. "That rule has no basis in ordinary principles of contract law. And it distorts the attempt 'to ascertain the intention of the parties.' Yard-Man's assessment of likely behavior in collective bargaining is too speculative and too far removed from the context of any particular contract to be useful in discerning the parties' intention." Thomas also slammed the lower court for misapplying "other traditional principles of contract law, including the illusory promises doctrine." In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg clarified what directions the lower court should take on remand, telling it to "examine the entire agreement to determine whether the parties intended retiree health-care benefits to vest." "Because the retirees have a vested, lifetime right to a monthly pension, a provision stating that retirees 'will receive' health- care benefits if they are 'receiving a monthly pension' is relevant to this examination," the opinion continues. "So is a 'survivor benefits' clause instructing that if a retiree dies, her surviving spouse will 'continue to receive [the retiree's health- care] benefits . . . until death or remarriage.' If, after considering all relevant contractual language in light of industry practices, the Court of Appeals concludes that the contract is ambiguous, it may turn to extrinsic evidence -- for example, the parties' bargaining history. The Court of Appeals, however, must conduct the foregoing inspection without Yard-Man's 'thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree benefits.'" Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg. The case is M&G Polymers USA, LLC, et al. v. Tackett, et al., Case No. 13-1010, in the Supreme Court of the United States. MANHATTAN BANCORP: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to Plaza Bancorp -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Manhattan Bancorp too cheaply through an unfair process to Plaza Bancorp, for $5.59 a share or a 1-for-1.2 share stock swap, shareholders say in a class action in California Superior Court. MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Sued in California Over Points Timeshare Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- Norman Abramson and Carreen E. Abramson, individually and as Class claimants v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00135 (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2015), arises out of the materially false and misleading representation made by the Defendants in connection with advertisement or promotion of the points timeshare plan. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. is a subsidiary of Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, which operates more than 50 Marriott Vacation Club properties throughout the United States, Caribbean, Europe, and Asia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. Jeremy Robinson, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT &PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com jrobinson@cglaw.com - and - Joseph M. Matthews, Esq. Latoya C. Brown, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7468 E-mail: joseph@colson.com latoya@colson.com - and - Seth I. Rubinson, Esq. ZABEL FREEMAN LLP 420 Heights Boulevard Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 802-9117 Facsimile: (713) 802-9114 E-mail: srubinson@zflawfirm.com MB FINANCIAL: "McCue" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Cristin McCue, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MB Financial, Inc. and MB Financial Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-00988 (N.D. Ill., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate 87 bank branches throughout Illinois and Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. Paul William Mollica, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com pwmollica@outtengolden.com MERCER CANYONS: Must Face Migrant Wage Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Matthew Bultman, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington federal judge on Jan. 23 kept alive a putative class action alleging a southeastern Washington farm failed to inform local farm workers about the availability of higher-paying H-2A visa vineyard jobs, saying there are genuine disputes of fact in the case. U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Mercer Canyons on the workers' claims the farm violated the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act and state wage laws by not telling them about the higher-paying jobs. "Viewing all disputed facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims must be denied," Judge Bastian wrote. Named plaintiffs Bacilio Ruiz and Jose Amador filed suit in March seeking to represent farm workers in a suit against Mercer Canyons, a 12,000-acre farm in southeastern Washington that, according to its website, grows wine grapes and an assortment of vegetables. They allege the farm failed to notify prospective and current workers that it had received a clearance order to employ workers for vineyard labor under the H-2A visa program, a federal program that allows employers who meet specific requirements to fill temporary agricultural jobs with noncitizens. According to Mr. Amador, who lives in a nearby town, he and two family members were looking for jobs when they drove to Mercer Canyons in March 2013 but were told there were no jobs available. Around that time, however, the company hired 22 workers from Mexico who had been referred by an employment office, paying each $12 per hour, the complaint says. Mr. Ruiz, meanwhile, worked at the farm between January and September 2013 but was paid only $9.88 per hour and was never told there were higher-paying jobs available, the complaint says. The plaintiffs allege the company engaged in a "practice of deceiving existing and prospective employees regarding [$12-per- hour] jobs available" and sought class certification. The class certification motion was put on hold pending the outcome of the motion for summary judgment. In its filing, Mercer Canyon argued, among other things, that it didn't give Amador false information and that he had no standing to make a claim under the AWPA because he was not a "seasonal worker." It also disputed the idea of a link between the allegedly deceptive practices and any economic injury the plaintiffs suffered. Mr. Amador, they said, declined to leave his contact information when he visited Mercer Canyon, severing any causal link, and Ruiz hadn't shown he would have been able to get one of the higher- paying jobs even if he had known about them. Judge Bastian sided with the plaintiffs, saying there was genuine dispute about the information Mercer Canyon provided to Mr. Amador. There is also dispute as to whether Ruiz was paid at the proper rate, he ruled. As for the possible injuries, he said the plaintiffs "have, at the least, presented facts that raise a genuine dispute as to whether a causal link exists between any deceptive practices and injury suffered." Lori A. Jordan Isley of Columbia Legal Services, one of the firms representing the workers, said the decision reaffirmed a basic worker protection under federal and state law. "Growers have to provide truthful information to workers, and the court reaffirmed that in dismissing the summary motion," she said. The plaintiffs are represented by Adam Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com -- and Martin S Garfinkel -- garfinkel@sgb-law.com -- of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender and Lori A Jordan Isley, Joachim Morrison and David Solis of Columbia Legal Services. Mercer Canyons is represented by Michael T Reynvaan -- MReynvaan@perkinscoie.com -- Aurora Rose Janke and Frederick Brian Rivera -- FRivera@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie LLP. The case is Ruiz Torres et al v. Mercer Canyons Inc., case number 1:14-cv-03032, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Insurance-Related Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00504-ERK-RLM (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015) arises from insurance- related disputes. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Domenick Zaremba, Esq. ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN PLLC 40 Wall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 380-6700 Facsimile: (212) 871-6395 E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com MF GLOBAL: NY Judge Rules on Document Production Bid ---------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV granted, in part, the request of defendants Bradley Abelow, Jon Corzine, David Dunne, Randy MacDonald, Vinay Mahajan, Edith O'Brien, David P. Bolger, Eileen S. Fusco, David Gelber, Martin J.G. Glynn, Edward L. Goldberg, David I. Schamis, Robert S. Sloan, and Henry Steenkamp to compel the Litigation Trustee of the MF Global Litigation Trust to search all of the as-yet-unproduced documents of MF Global Inc. and MF Global Holdings Ltd. and produce those responsive to the Individual Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. JOSEPH DeANGELIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JON S. CORZINE, et al., Defendants. IN RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD. INVESTMENT LITIGATION, NOS. 11 CIV. 7866 (VM) (JCF), 12 MD 2338 (S.D.N.Y.), is a consolidated action concerning the events surrounding the collapse of MF Global. The Litigation Trustee is the assignee of the rights and interests of the former Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global, and has control over all of the company's documents that were in existence at the time of its bankruptcy on October 31, 2011. The Litigation Trustee has produced or agreed to produce millions of pages of documents to the Individual Defendants, including documents from 33 MF Global custodians who were identified by certain government agencies in connection with their investigations and by the plaintiffs in the putative securities class action that is part of the consolidated case. The Individual Defendants contend that this is insufficient and seek an order compelling the Litigation Trustee to search "all relevant document file systems" of MF Global, including "all shared drives, private shared files, custodial files and hard copy document sources" that might contain material responsive to the requests for production. Judge Francis directed the parties to meet and confer to agree on a reasonable list of additional custodians -- no more than six -- whose files will be produced. In addition, they are to confer to identify a reasonable subset of file systems likely to contain relevant documents, which the Litigation Trustee must produce. A copy of Judge Francis' Memorandum and Order dated January 15, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Cf28wKfrom Leagle.com. MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y., Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Friedman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-00498 (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MUAK BABY: Recalls 3-in-1 High Chairs Duet to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Muak Baby LLC, of Redondo Beach, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 1470 Mima Moon 3-in-1 High Chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The high chair seat can loosen and dislodge, allowing the seat and child to fall. The chair can also fall onto a child crawling underneath the seat, posing an impact hazard to the child. This recall includes Moon model 3-in-1 high chairs which adjust to a newborn, high and junior chair with a unique design consisting of a base with two feet supporting a single post that holds up the seat in a clear shell. The shell has a white inner seat with a removable seat pad in white, camel or black. The high chair measures about 3 feet tall when in its highest position. There is a "Mima" logo where the metal post attaches to the base to the seat. There is also a "Moon" logo on the inside of the feet that form the base of the high chair. The serial and model numbers are located on a sticker on the inside of one of the two feet that form the base of the high chair. Serial Numbers included in recall: MC00147U to MC00282U MC00283U to MC00313U MC00315U to MC00316U MC00318 to MC00419U MC00420U to MC00556U MC00557U to MC00576U MC00577U to MC00586U MC00587U to MC00596U MC00597U to MC00606U MC00607U to MC00616U MC00617U to MC00636U MC00636U to MC00655U MC00657U to MC00659U MC00707U to MC00756U MC00757U to MC00796U MC00798U to MC00806U MC00807U to MC00906U MC00907U to MC00956U MC00957U to MC01006U MC01007U to MC01031U MC01032U to MC01056U MC01057U to MC01059U MC01061U to MC01095U MC01096U to MC01115U MC01116U to MC01125U MC01126U to MC01135U MC01136U to MC01170U MC01171U to MC01175U MC01176U to MC01265U MC01266U to MC01295U MC01296U to MC01305U MC01306U to MC01325U MC01326U to MC01415U MC01416U to MC01623U The firm has received 14 reports of the high chair seat loosening. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/NNyJxy. The recalled products were manufactured in China and majority of the high chairs were given away at the May 9, 2014 taping of the Ellen DeGeneres television show. The remaining chairs were sold at children's juvenile product stores in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Texas and Virginia from February 2014 through September 2014 for about $500. Consumers should stop using the high chair immediately and contact Mima to receive a free replacement upper chair section or instructions on receiving a refund. NAGOYA JAPANESE: "Liong" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Hok Boen Liong and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. Nagoya Japanese Restaurant, Inc., Santoso Wibowo, Noto Wibowo, Melly Wibowo, Ngoto Wibowo, and Zhen Chen, Case No. 2:15-cv-00626 (D.N.J., January 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Japanese Restaurant located at 278 North Avenue East, Westfield, New Jersey 07090. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 NEW YORK, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: EA Sports Judges to Hear Antitrust Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA Today Sports, reports that The NCAA's appeal of the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit is now under the jurisdiction of the same three judges who ruled 2-1 against one of the NCAA's former co-defendants in what the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided is a "related case." The 9th Circuit's ruling in that case -- which involved video game manufacturer Electronic Arts and former Arizona State and Nebraska football player Sam Keller -- was labeled as erroneous by the NCAA in its opening brief for the O'Bannon appeal. "I don't think (the O'Bannon plaintiffs) should go out and buy champagne yet, but this is not a good day for the NCAA," said University of San Diego law professor Shaun Martin, an expert on 9th Circuit matters. The developments were announced on Jan. 22 in an order issued on the court's behalf by its clerk's office a little more than 24 hours after the O'Bannon plaintiffs made a filing that completed the first round of written arguments to the appellate court. The Jan. 22 order does not mention the judges by name, and it lists the prior matter only by its 9th Circuit case number. But that case number was assigned to EA Sports' bid to strike a complaint filed on behalf of Keller, who alleged that EA illegally used his likeness in the NCAA Football game. Judges Jay S. Bybee and Gordon J. Quist sent the Keller case back to a district court, saying that the EA game was not protected under the First Amendment as an artistic creation. Judge Bybee wrote the opinion, Judge Sydney R. Thomas a dissent. David J. Madden, the assistant circuit executive for the 9th Circuit, confirmed for USA TODAY Sports on Jan. 23 that "as of [Fri]day," Judges Bybee, Quist and Thomas "have the case now. They can make any orders or directives . . . as in any other case." The NCAA's interest in the ruling stems from the O'Bannon plaintiffs' claim that the association violated antitrust law by limiting what Bowl Subdivision football and Division I men's basketball players can receive for playing sports and for the use of the names, images and likenesses in in live television broadcasts, rebroadcasts of games and video games. In its initial written argument in support of the O'Bannon appeal, the NCAA said Judges Bybee and Quist ruled "erroneously" in the Keller case, contradicting "settled First Amendment doctrine" that allows expressive use of realistic images. The NCAA added that it "preserves this argument for (full 9th Circuit) or Supreme Court review." Athletes speak forcefully, vote historically at NCAA convention The NCAA also argues that the First Amendment -- combined with various laws and court rulings -- prohibits athletes from claiming that they are entitled to compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses in live telecasts because the telecasts constitute news coverage. At the time of the 9th Circuit's ruling against EA, the Keller case and the O'Bannon case had been consolidated at the district court level even though the Keller case did not involve antitrust issues and was progressing at a slower pace than was the O'Bannon case because of EA's appeal. (The NCAA and the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co., also were defendants in the Keller case, but the First Amendment issue and others involved in that appeal related to EA's role, so it pursued the appeal.) The Keller case and some video game-related issues in the O'Bannon case eventually reached preliminary settlements, removing EA and CLC from the action, but the NCAA continued to cite the First Amendment as a reason it should prevail in the O'Bannon case, which went to trial this past summer. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ended up ruling in favor of the O'Bannon plaintiffs. She determined that NCAA rules limiting athletes to scholarships basically comprising tuition, fees, room, board and books violate antitrust laws and she ordered the creation of a system under which Bowl Subdivision football and Division I men's basketball players would be able to receive not only scholarships covering their full cost of attending school but also what amounts to deferred compensation in exchange for their participation and the schools' use of their names, images and likenesses. The NCAA submitted a written opening argument to the 9th Circuit in November and can offer a reply to the O'Bannon plaintiffs' the Jan. 21 filing by Feb. 11. In most cases, the 9th Circuit does not assign judges to a case until after all written filings have been submitted and does not publicly disclose which judges have been assigned to a case until even later. In this case, Mr. Madden said in an e-mail on Jan. 23: "The O'Bannon case was offered and accepted by the Keller panel as a comeback case under the court's" general rules. Mr. Madden wrote that the rules define a comeback case as one "involving substantially the same parties and issues from which there had previously been a calendared appeal or opinion." He added: "The purpose of this practice is to conserve judicial resources by assigning related cases to a panel already having substantial understanding of the underlying facts of the case. O'Bannon and the (NCAA) are parties in both cases, which also involve the same video games. The two cases were so closely related that they were originally consolidated at the district court for purposes of pretrial proceedings." Judges Bybee and Thomas are members of the 9th Circuit, with Thomas the chief judge. Judge Quist is a senior district judge in the Western District of Michigan who was temporarily assigned to the 9th Circuit for the Keller case; such assignments are allowed when judicial need arises. Mr. Martin said it is unusual for the court to determine on its own that one case is related to a prior case and for the same panel of judges to assume jurisdiction over the subsequent case. Usually, Mr. Martin said, such determinations are made after a request by one of the sides. No such requests have been recorded in the 9th Circuit's list of filings in the O'Bannon case. "With run-of-the-mill cases, no one around even remembers (what might be) a related case," Mr. Martin said. "This ain't a run-of- the-mill case." Mr. Martin said that the NCAA's specific assertions about Judges Bybee's Keller appeal opinion won't help its cause in the O'Bannon case, but the bigger issue is that the three judges "already have expressed their opinions in a related case." But Mr. Martin also cautioned that the NCAA's appeal of Judge Wilken's ruling primarily focuses on other issues -- Judge Wilken's refusal to follow a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA has relied upon to preserve its amateurism system and her injunction's specific reach into NCAA rules-making. Thomas, the judge who favored EA in the Keller appeal, wrote as part of the reason for dissent that for a variety of legal reasons "an individual college athlete's right of publicity is extraordinarily circumscribed and, in practical reality, non- existent." However, he added in a footnote: "The issue of whether this structure is fair to the student athlete is beyond the scope of this appeal, but forms a significant backdrop to the discussion." He cited the NCAA's hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and that vast majority of comes from "television and marketing fees. However, few college athletes will ever receive any professional compensation. . . . And participation in college football can come at a terrible cost. The NCAA reports that, during a recent five- year period, college football players suffered 41,000 injuries, including 23 non-fatal catastrophic injuries and 11 (fatalities) from indirect catastrophic injuries." NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Suggests Changes to Concussion Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the federal judge handling the case over concussions in the National Football League has suggested minor changes to the settlement before she grants it final approval. The proposed settlement, which got preliminary approval last July after the judge rejected the first deal a year ago, has been maligned by lawyers for some of the former players. The five suggestions made by U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania don't address the major criticism of the settlement from some of the plaintiffs' lawyers, which is that it doesn't compensate players who have chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. The terms of the settlement allow for cash awards to the families of players who die with CTE before the date of preliminary approval of the settlement, which was at the beginning of July. In her three-page order issued on Jan. 2, Judge Brody suggested that coverage for death with CTE should go through the date of final approval of the settlement. She also suggested that the settlement should include some credit for eligible seasons played in the World League of American Football, the NFL Europe League, and the NFL Europa League; it should have reasonable accommodations for class members who don't have medical records due to "force majeure-type events"; it should include a hardship provision for the appeal fee for class members; and it should ensure that all eligible players who comply with all of the deadlines should have access to the baseline assessment examination, which tests former players' neurocognitive functions to establish whether they have a diagnosis that qualifies for a recovery under the settlement, regardless of any potential funding limitations. The last suggestion has the same tenor as the reason that she rejected the first agreement last January. She rejected that deal, which included a $675 million fund from which injured former players would draw, making clear that she was troubled by the lack of empirical support for the figure and that she was unsure that there would be enough money to cover all of the players with potential claims. That move drew praise from lawyers for some of the former football players who alleged that they had been kept in the dark on the details of the deal. At the fairness hearing for the settlement held in November, Chris Seeger, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs who worked on the deal with the NFL's lawyers, told Brody that the issue now before her -- when she is weighing final approval of the settlement -- is "not whether it's perfect," but, rather, whether it is fair, reasonable and adequate. He noted that Third Circuit precedent entitles the settlement to a presumption of fairness. He characterized the objecting lawyers as wanting to structure the settlement their way, by having various subclasses of plaintiffs rather than the two that are included in the settlement. Bruce Birenboim -- bbirenboim@paulweiss.com -- of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who is on the NFL's defense team, framed the issue of deciding which CTE-related ailments to cover this way: "Is the line that was drawn here fair and reasonable; given the science and, we think, given the causation issues and given the infancy of the research in the area, the line is clearly a fair line." Seeger, Birenboim and Brad Karp -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- who is another Paul Weiss lawyer on the NFL's defense team, all repeatedly emphasized that players don't have to prove causation in order to collect for their qualifying injuries under their proposed settlement. Proving that the players' neurocognitive ailments were caused by head injuries they suffered while playing in the NFL had loomed as one of the major obstacles the plaintiffs would have to overcome if the case went to litigation. Mr. Karp characterized the criticisms of the settlement for its lack of coverage for CTE as a deliberate and fundamental misunderstanding of the settlement and its scope. Mood disorders and depression, both of which some objectors list as symptoms of CTE, are also distributed across the general population and "have nothing in the world" to do with football or CTE, Mr. Karp said. Regarding Judge Brody's suggestions for changes to the settlement, Seeger said in a prepared statement, "We will work with the National Football League to promptly address the issues raised in Judge Brody's order, and remain confident this settlement will receive final approval. We are grateful to Judge Brody for her guidance and continued efforts to protect the rights of all class members. We look forward to finalizing this agreement so that retired players can begin taking advantage of its benefits." NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Court Limits Claims Against APAC & Chang ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Rya W. Zobel granted, in part, and denied, in part, the request of Advanced Pain & Anesthesia Consultants, P.C. d/b/a APAC Centers for Pain Management ("APAC") and Randolph Y. Chang, M.D., for dismissal of all claims against them in the multidistrict litigation that stemmed from an outbreak of fungal meningitis caused by contaminated methylprednisolone acetate manufactured and sold by the New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., d/b/a New England Compounding Center. APAC and Chang sought dismissal of all claims against them in the so-called direct-filed actions for lack of personal jurisdiction, and in the direct-filed and Illinois-filed actions, for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6). Judge Zobel, in a January 13, 2015 Memorandum of Decision available at http://is.gd/i7bCuafrom Leagle.com, ruled that: -- the direct-filed actions be consolidated into their corresponding Illinois-filed actions; -- Plaintiffs' claims for agency (Count X), civil conspiracy (Count XI), and battery (Count VII) are dismissed without prejudice per stipulation of the parties; -- Defendants' motion to dismiss is allowed as to plaintiffs' claim for strict product liability (Count IX) and denied as to all other claims. NEW JERSEY: Fathers Sue Over Child Custody Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------ Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a group of fathers is moving ahead with its suit claiming they get short shrift in child custody proceedings before New Jersey's family court judges. The group filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Trenton on Jan. 22, naming five Family Part judges as defendants. The latest filing follows a Jan. 16 ruling from U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson that granted the defendants' motion to dismiss but dispatched some of the counts without prejudice. The amended complaint brings due process and equal protection claims against Judges Lawrence DeBello and Anthony Massi, both of Mercer County; John Call Jr. of Burlington County; Nancy Sivilli of Essex County; and Maureen Sogluizzo of Hudson County in their official and individual capacities. The judges signed orders in the cases of the six plaintiff fathers. The complaint is brought on behalf of persons who were deprived of child custody by the defendants in violation of their constitutional rights. The six fathers who are named plaintiffs claim that basing custody decisions on the best interests of the child violates the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Parents who are at risk of losing a custody or visitation battle should be granted the same due process rights granted to those whose parental rights are subject to termination due to abuse or neglect, they claim. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for deprivation of fundamental rights under color of law, including an order requiring any parent whose right to care, custody or control of their child was reduced by state action to be granted a plenary hearing within 10 days of that action. The fathers claim they lost custody of their children after being given short notice of orders to show cause accusing them of domestic violence or being incompetent parents. Many of the plaintiffs claim they had no chance to retain counsel before losing custody and visitation, and are required to demonstrate a change in circumstances before they can regain custody. Among the plaintiffs is Surender Malhan, who cites the proceedings in which he lost custody of his two children after their mother filed an order to show cause requesting full custody. Ms. Sogluizzo gave Mr. Malhan less than two hours' notice of the proceeding and did not allow him to present evidence to refute the mother's claims that he was an unfit parent, the suit says. Mr. Malhan was interviewed on WWOR-TV about the present suit, prompting Sivilli to issue an order barring him from discussing the case with the media. Mr. Malhan claims his First Amendment rights were violated by the order. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Jersey City, N.J., solo practitioner Paul Clark, also has filed a separate suit against Sivilli over the gag order on behalf of a local blogger, Paul Nichols. Clark notes that all the plaintiffs in the class action are male, but he says it's unclear whether the system is biased against fathers. "We're certainly hoping to get the federal court to review the situation in the New Jersey Family Court. In our view, the Appellate Division has let the lower court do whatever it wants," Clark said. The plaintiffs' claims against the state of New Jersey, Superior Court Clerk Michelle Smith and several presiding Chancery Division judges were dismissed by Judge Wolfson on Jan. 16. Judge Wolfson rejected the state's motion to dismiss the case as an attempt to appeal state court proceedings. She cited a 2013 U.S. Court of Appeals for Third Circuit ruling in a similar case, B.S. v. Somerset County, in which the appeals court ruled that such grounds did not apply to the case of a mother who claimed she lost custody of her daughter due to a violation of her due process rights by a Pennsylvania state court judge. Judge Wolfson also rejected the state's sovereign immunity defense, finding that the plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants for injunctive relief involving their custody hearings are not actions against the state and are not barred by sovereign immunity. Judiciary spokeswoman Tammy Kendig declined to comment on the amended complaint. NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Moose Class action Appeal Hearing Wraps Up ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Telegram reports that a two-day appeal hearing into the moose- vehicle class action that was dismissed in September wrapped up on Jan. 23. More than a hundred class members who have been affected by moose- vehicle collisions in the province were part of the class action, led by lawyer Ches Crosbie. The trial judge dismissed the case in the fall, saying the presence of moose on the province's highways is not a result of government activity, and the government doesn't owe the travelling public a duty of care. Mr. Crosbie said in a news release the appeal hearing, which included a panel of three judges, was "full and thorough." A decision could take six months or longer, the news release said, and members of the class action will be notified as soon as the decision is available. NITE LIGHT: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Gilbert Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nite Light Signs and Balloons, Inc., d/b/a Awesome Amusements, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01022 (N.D. Ill., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Nite Light Signs and Balloons, Inc. rents rides, attractions and concessions for private events and for various community organizations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence Buehler, Esq. TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP 55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372-2209 Facsimile: (312) 456-3838 E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com OMEGA FLEX: Negligence/Strict Liability Dichotomy Repudiated ------------------------------------------------------------ James M. Beck, writing for Law.com, reports that during the long reign of Azzarello v. Black Brothers, 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), as the foundation of strict products liability in Pennsylvania, the strict separation of "negligence" and "strict liability" imposed by that decision led to a number of secondary exclusions of evidence and theories. The first of these involved so-called "state of the art" evidence, of which there are several subsets: (1) scientific unknowability; (2) governmental standards; and (3) industry standards. In Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division, 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987), the court, citing to Azzarello's negligence/strict liability dichotomy, held that evidence of industry customs and standards should be inadmissible in strict liability actions. Discussing Azzarello, the court said, "We also concluded, if not expressly, then certainly by clear implication, that negligence concepts have no place in a case based on strict liability." Therefore, the court decided, "evidence of industry standards . . . go to the reasonableness of the [defendant's] conduct in making its design choice," and "conclude[d] that such evidence would have improperly brought into the case concepts of negligence law." Even before Lewis, however, the Superior Court in Carrecter v. Colson Equipment, 499 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 1985), had held that Azzarello barred manufacturers from defending on the basis that either the risk or the curative measure at issue was scientifically unknowable at the time of the product's manufacture. Carrecter rejected any defense based on "the technological feasibility aspect of state of the art," because "in the Pennsylvania law of products liability there is no room for a negligence based defense under the guise of 'state of the art.'" Last to fall to the negligence/strict liability dichotomy was compliance with mandatory government standards. In Hicks v. Dana Cos., 984 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2009), the en banc court held that "governmental regulations are inadmissible in strict liability cases . . . based upon the general premise that the introduction of such evidence has the effect of shifting the jury's attention from the existence of a defect to the reasonableness of the manufacturer's conduct, which is irrelevant in strict liability actions." Cases that had allowed compliance evidence "were predicated upon [a] definition of defect . . . which differs from the one articulated by our Supreme Court in Azzarello." Governmental and industry standards were indistinguishable. "In either situation the use of such evidence interjects negligence concepts and tends to divert the jury from their proper focus, which must remain upon whether or not the product, when it left the control of the manufacturer, was 'lacking any element necessary to make it safe for its intended use or possessing any feature that renders it unsafe for the intended use.'" Another negligence defense fell, in Kimco Development v. Michael D's Carpet Outlets, 637 A.2d 603 (Pa. 1993), where the court held that comparative fault did not apply to cases litigated on strict liability principals. Relying, in part, on a pre-Azzarello case, McCown v. International Harvester, 342 A.2d 381 (Pa. 1975), which had abrogated the common-law defense of contributory negligence in strict liability, the court held that "the underlying purpose of strict products liability is undermined by introducing negligence concepts into it." Kimco quoted Azzarello at length for this proposition. Finally, the admissibility of plaintiff fault as bearing on causation vexed Pennsylvania courts for many years. In one of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's last decisions applying the Azzarello standard, Reott v. Asia Trend, 55 A.3d 1088 (Pa. 2012), sought to keep negligence and strict liability separate by restricting such evidence to a plaintiff's "highly reckless conduct." Only "highly reckless conduct" -- not mere "contributory negligence" -- was admissible in strict liability. The dichotomy between negligence and strict liability forced this distinction: "Under Pennsylvania's scheme of products liability, evidence of highly reckless conduct has the potential to erroneously and unnecessarily blend concepts of comparative/contributory negligence . . . Without some further criteria, highly reckless conduct allegations by defendants could become vehicles through which to eviscerate a Section 402A action by demonstrating a plaintiff's comparative or contributory negligence." The conduct at issue in Reott was deemed insufficiently "unforeseeable and outrageous" to be admissible. Then the court expressly overruled Azzarello in Tincher v. Omega Flex, ___ A.3d ___, No. 17 MAP 2013 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014). Azzarello "articulate[d] governing legal concepts which fail to reflect the realities of strict liability practice and to serve the interests of justice." Thus, Tincher repudiated the negligence/strict liability dichotomy upon which the exclusions in cases such as Lewis was predicated. Instead of strict separation, Tincher recognized that "the theory of strict liability as it evolved overlaps in effect with the theories of negligence and breach of warranty." "A strict reading of Azzarello is undesirable," the Tincher court said. "Subsequent application of Azzarello elevated the notion that negligence concepts create confusion in strict liability cases to a doctrinal imperative, whose merits were not examined to determine whether such a bright-line rule was consistent with reason. . . The effect of the per se rule that negligence rhetoric and concepts were to be eliminated from strict liability law was to validate the suggestion that the cause of action, so shaped, was not viable." As the court said, "those decisions essentially led to puzzling trial directives that the bench and bar understandably have had difficulty following in practice." Azzarello's "negligence rhetoric-related doctrinal proscription arising from a peculiar set of circumstances had long-term deleterious effects on the development of strict liability law in Pennsylvania." According to Tincher, a "typical" design defect case involves foreseeable risks, akin to negligence, and thus approximates the "alternative design" approach of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: "[This] claim was essentially premised upon the allegation that the risk of harm related to [the product's design] was both foreseeable and avoidable. . . . These allegations, at least, bear the indicia of negligence. Indeed, in some respects this is the 'typical' case, which explains both the insight that in design cases, the character of the product and the conduct of the manufacturer are largely inseparable, and the Third Restatement's approach of requiring an alternative design as part of the standard of proof." The court cautioned, however, that not every case was typical. "Courts do not try the 'typical' products case exclusively." Under Tincher's "composite" standard, both "risk/utility" and "consumer expectation" theories of defect are permitted. This duality recognizes that "the theory of strict liability as it evolved overlaps in effect with the theories of negligence and breach of warranty." Manufacturers typically "engage in a risk- utility calculus" typical of negligence whereas intermediate sellers "implicitly represent" their products' nondefectiveness analogously to a warranty. Tincher refrained from passing on any of the Azzarello-based restrictions on defenses and evidence, because those questions were not before it. As the court stated: "We recognize -- and the bench and bar should recognize -- that the decision to overrule Azzarello . . . may have an impact . . . upon subsidiary issues constructed from Azzarello, such as the availability of negligence-derived defenses. . . . These considerations and effects are outside the scope of [this case]." The court continued: "This opinion does not purport to either approve or disapprove prior decisional law, or available alternatives suggested by commentators or the Restatements, relating to . . . or subsidiary considerations and consequences of our explicit holdings." Tincher thus made explicit the court's understanding that, with Azzarello and its negligence/strict liability dichotomy overruled, all of the prior restrictions on what were previously considered "negligence-derived" or "use-related" defenses and evidence are now fair game for reconsideration. By no means are any or all of them defunct, as yet, but these restrictions on how defendants may try their cases must now be evaluated on their substantive merit, and can no longer be justified simply because they involve negligence principles or evidence. In the new, post-Tincher era, litigants will be required to preserve for appellate review numerous issues that were previously thought settled under Azzarello's negligence/strict liability dichotomy. Tincher's seismic shift in the fundamental bases for products liability demands no less. PANTRY INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Couche-Tard, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling The Pantry (convenience stores) too cheaply through an unfair process to Couche-Tard, for $36.75 a share of $1.7 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. PFIZER INC: Sued for Keeping Celebrex Generics From Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------- Charly Himmel at Courthouse News Service reports that Pfizer fraudulently got its patent for its highly successful arthritis drug Celebrex reissued so it could wage a war of sham litigation to keep generic versions of drug from consumers, a class action claims. Named plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund alleges that Pfizer undertook to scheme after a Federal Court ruled that its patent relating to the active ingredient in Celebrex, celecoxib, was invalid. As a result of its alleged activities, "purchasers of prescription drugs are now paying, and will continue to pay, supra-competitive prices for Celebrex, imposing antitrust overcharges on purchasers of many hundreds of millions of dollars even though the only valid celecoxib patents have already expired," the complaint says. The plaintiff claims Pfizer repeatedly submitted false information to the U.S. Patent and Trade Office in order to obtain continuous reissue patents. Patent exclusivity for celecoxib ended on May 30, 2014. Pfizer has since attempted to preemptively prosecute other drug manufacturers who might produce generic versions of the drug, the complaint says. "But Pfizer's goal was not to win this sham litigation," the plaintiffs continue. "It was simply to use the lawsuit to delay would-be generic makers' entry efforts, and to have a lawsuit pending to serve as a vehicle for later settlements that would buy Pfizer additional exclusivity beyond May 2014." Allied Services says these efforts were successful. It points to Teva Pharmaceuticals as one party, who settled out of court under the accord that they would not produce their generic version of the drug until December 2014. "Protecting our intellectual property is vital to our ability to develop new medicines that save or enhance patient lives," Senior Director of Pfizer Media Relations Christine Regan Lindenboom told Courthouse News. "Pfizer's good-faith efforts to procure and enforce its Celebrex patents were at all times proper and lawful, and the Company believes this case has no merit." According to Pfizer, more than 33 million US consumers have taken Celebrex since its inception in 1999. Celebrex grossed over $2 billion in sales last year alone. PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Fails to Keep Expert Witness in Zoloft MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports that the first expert offered by plaintiffs to show the antidepressant Zoloft caused birth defects in babies born to mothers who took it is still unacceptable, the federal judge handling the case has ruled. U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stuck by her June decision to toss Dr. Anick Berard from the case in an opinion she issued to answer the plaintiffs' steering committee's motion for reconsideration in the multidistrict litigation case that covers more than 600 plaintiffs. In an unusual move earlier this month, Judge Rufe allowed the plaintiffs to offer a second causation expert to the court over the forceful objection of Pfizer, which makes the drug. "Dr. Berard departed from the generally accepted methods and principles of her field in multiple ways," Judge Rufe said in her most recent opinion, reaffirming her June decision. On reconsideration, the judge did not find that she had "committed an error of fact or law," she said, or that the court had abused its discretion. Zoloft is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that is sometimes prescribed to pregnant women. Mothers who took the drug while pregnant and had babies with birth defects filed the suit. Berard had done studies that would have supported their argument that Zoloft had led to the birth defects. "Dr. Berard opines that SSRIs, in general, and Zoloft, in particular, cause a wide range of birth defects when used during pregnancy," Judge Rufe had said in her original June opinion rejecting Berard as an expert. "Other researchers in her field have concluded that the epidemiological research on which Dr. Berard relies provides no conclusive evidence of an association between Zoloft and birth defects." Some of those other researchers actually recommend Zoloft as a first-line treatment for depression in pregnant women, the judge said. "This does not represent a mere professional difference of opinion; Dr. Berard's opinions regarding Zoloft are only made possible by her departure from use of well-established epidemiological methods," Judge Rufe had said. Dr. Berard is a professor at the University of Montreal who researches the effect of medications on pregnancy. The field is teratology and drugs that cause birth defects are called teratogens. Since traditional epidemiological studies can't ethically be done on pregnant women, those who study that group calculate risk to fetuses from drugs in other ways, Judge Rufe explained. The judge found that Dr. Berard's methods weren't sturdy enough to pass muster for the court. That was the outcome of the first Daubert hearing, which allows parties in a case to challenge expert testimony before the start of trial and is named for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. It lasted for about a week last April and focused primarily on Dr. Berard. Judge Rufe set the stage for a second Daubert hearing when she allowed the plaintiffs to present a second expert witness. Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, who argued on behalf of Pfizer at that hearing, had characterized the plaintiffs' motion to introduce a new expert as highly unusual, calling it a "Daubert do-over," using language adapted from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. During the hearing, Judge Rufe had fastened on the question of potential prejudice to Pfizer, saying to Mr. Cheffo, "I want to really know: How is Pfizer harmed and isn't it just as harmful not to grant the right to have Dr. Jewell come in?" Dr. Nicholas Jewell is a professor in the biostatistics division at the University of California, Berkeley. His testimony would seek to prove that Zoloft causes heart defects in babies born to mothers who take the drug rather than all of the various defects that Dr. Berard's testimony would have sought to link to the drug. "Although there is some prejudice to Pfizer, in that it will be put to the additional expense required to litigate the admissibility of Dr. Jewell's proposed testimony, this prejudice is not of a character sufficient to warrant denial of the motion," Judge Rufe said when she allowed the plaintiffs to move forward with Jewell. PRANNATH INC: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Lara-Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Prannath, Inc., d/b/a Dos Amigos, and Anil Patel, Case No. 1:15-cv-01043 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants own and operate Dos Amigos restaurant located 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 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Plaintiffs' Causation Expert Can't Testify ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that if big product liability cases have one thing in common, it's that they tend to drag on and on for both sides. Just ask Weil, Gotshal & Manges, which has spent five years chipping away at claims that Procter & Gamble's Fixodent denture glue can cause neurological damage. P&G hasn't escaped the litigation yet, but it edged closer last week, convincing a federal judge for the second time to keep the plaintiffs' causation expert from testifying. Siding with a Weil team led by Edward Soto, U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Miami ruled on Jan. 29 that plaintiffs lawyers had offered flawed evidence in their attempts to prove a link between the zinc in Fixodent and neurological damage among people who use the product. The ruling effectively undermines the plaintiffs' theory of injury in the long-running denture cream case, which P&G and Weil have been fighting since 2009. Judge Soto called the ruling a "significant victory" on Feb. 2, saying it vindicated P&G's arguments that "the science does not support plaintiffs' causation theory." We also reached out to plaintiffs lawyer Eric Chaffin of Chaffin Luhana but didn't hear back. The multidistrict litigation had originally targeted GlaxoSmithKline as well over its similar Super Poligrip product. GSK announced in 2010 that it would stop using zinc in Poligrip, however, and it later paid a reported $120 million in a series of settlements with the plaintiffs. P&G elected to keep fighting . . . and fighting, and fighting. But despite successes along the way, it's still waiting to close the book on the case. Indeed, the Jan. 29 ruling is the second time Judge Altonaga has sided with P&G and its lawyers at Weil on the plaintiffs' causation theory. In June 2011, Weil convinced Judge Altonaga to throw out causation expert testimony in one of the MDL suits led by plaintiff Marianne Chapman. At the time, Judge Altonaga ruled that the plaintiffs presented a "superficially appealing hypothesis that prolonged use of very large amounts of Fixodent" might cause neurological damage. She added, however, that the "theory is not ridiculous, but neither is it necessarily true." After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sided with Weil and upheld Judge Altonaga's ruling last year, lawyers for the plaintiffs went back to the drawing board, telling Judge Altonaga they'd uncovered new support for their claim that Fixodent can cause copper deficiency myeloneuropathy. Judge Altonaga shut that argument down in an exhaustive, 64-page ruling on Jan. 29. Most of the plaintiffs' purported new evidence, he found, suffered from the same defects as in Ms. Chapman. "While promising on its face, the 'new evidence since Chapman' relies on factually inaccurate data and unsupported assumptions," the judge wrote. PUNCHGINI INC: "Kumar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Naresh Kumar, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Punchgini, Inc., d/b/a Bukhara Grill, Raja Jhanjee, Vicky Vij, Bachan Rawat, Dhandu Ram, Paragnesh Desai, and Vijay Roa, Case No. 1:15-cv-00679 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Indian restaurant located at 217 East 49th Street, New York, New York 10017. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com REAL AWNING: Faces "Veiga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jervis De Armas Veiga, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) v. Real Awning Corp d/b/a Galaxy Awning Corp., Galaxy Awning and Signs Inc., The Golden Awning Co., The Golden Awning & Sign Corp, David Borrell, Yudisnier Calderon, Case No. 1:15-cv-20354 (S.D. Fla., January 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a company that manufacturers of custom signs, neon and commercial awnings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PC 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM REGENCY ENERGY: Being Sold to ETP for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Linda K. Blankman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Michael J. Bradley, James W. Bryant, Rodney L. Gray, John W. McReynolds, Matthew S. Ramsey, Regency Energy Partners LP, Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., Energy Transfer Partners, GP, L.P., and Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., Case No. 3:15-cv-00339-G (N.D. Tex., February 3, 2015) is brought on behalf of the unitholders of partnership units of Regency Energy Partners LP arising out of the Defendants' alleged attempt to sell Regency to Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. Ms. Blankman, citizen of Colorado, is the owner of units of Regency. Regency is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Regency GP, a Delaware limited partnership, is the general partner of Regency. Regency GP LLC is the general partner of Regency GP. Regency is managed by Regency GP, which in turn is managed by Regency GP LLC's directors and officers. Regency GP LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Regency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. THE KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: srowley@zlk.com SAN DIEGO GAS: Lower Court Ruling on "Guerra" Class Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of California, First District, concludes that the trial court erred in granting San Diego Gas & Electric Company's (SDG&E) motion for judgment on pleadings for class certification, without leave to amend, in the putative class action GUERRA v. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No. D065265. SDG&E is a public utility. A tariff rule promulgated by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) provides SDG&E can gain access to SDG&E's facilities located on a customer's private property and, when the customer has elected to place SDG&E's facilities behind locked doors, the rule grants SDG&E the discretion to select the locking mechanism that must be installed by the customer to enable SDG&E's personnel to obtain access to those facilities. SDG&E selected the Schlage VTQP Quad Key Section system (Keyways) as the device its customers must install. Keyways is a lock and key system. In 2012, Guerra filed the putative class action against SDG&E alleging a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which asserted, in part, that SDG&E engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices because it distributed keys to the locking mechanism selected by SDG&E without imposing reasonable controls to safeguard or track the keys, and Guerra and similarly situated persons were injured by SDG&E's conduct because persons obtained and used these keys to obtain entry to private property to commit burglaries. On the eve of Guerra's class certification motion, SDG&E sought judgment on the pleadings asserting, among other grounds, that the trial court did not have jurisdiction under Public Utilities Code section 1759. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, and Guerra timely appealed. On review, the Appellate Court opines that the trial court erred in dismissing the Complaint under Section 1759. Among other things, the Appellate Court holds that "SDG&E's claim [that] a ruling in Guerra's favor would impact rates, thereby transgressing on the PUC's exclusive authority over rates, appears contrary to established law." Accordingly, the Appellate Court rules, "The [trial court] judgment is reversed. Guerra is entitled to costs on appeal." A copy of the Appellate Court's January 20, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/JfI5xwfrom Leagle.com. Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com , Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com ; Law Office of John W. Davis and John W. Davis of 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, Tel: (619) 400-4870, Fax: (619) 342-7170 for Plaintiff and Appellant. Perez & Wilson, Michael J. Perez -- perez@perezwilson.com -- and Jeffrey A. Feasby for Defendant and Respondent. SARA J HAMILTON: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Lara, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. The Law Office of Sara J. Hamilton, P.C., and American Express Bank, FSB, Case No. 3:15-cv-00217-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 2, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Lee, Esq. KROHN & MOSS, LTD. 10474 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 405 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (323) 988-2400 Facsimile: (866) 385-1408 E-mail: rlee@consumerlawcenter.com SEA GULL LIGHTING: Recalls Light Chandeliers Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Sea Gull Lighting Products, LLC, of Skokie, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 8,800 light chandeliers in the United States and 800 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The chandelier's screw collar that holds the chandeliers to the ceiling mount can break causing the chandelier to fall and injure bystanders. This recall involves seven collections of Sea Gull Lighting chandeliers including: Brandywine, Laurel Leaf, New Verona, Newport, Parkview, Roslyn and Somerton. They are metal with various finishes and two or three tiers of glass shades. The chandeliers measure between 27 to 50 inches wide and 26 to 46 inches high, depending on the model. The following product numbers, located inside the ceiling canopy of the chandelier, are included in this recall: Collection Product Number Description ---------- -------------- ----------- Brandywine 31432-71 Nine-light, two-tier chandelier in an antique bronze finish with champagne marble glass shades. Brandywine 31432-71 Fifteen-light, three-tier 31433-71 chandelier in an antique bronze finish with champagne marble glass shades. Brandywine 31433-71 Fluorescent nine-light, two- 39033BLE-71 tier chandelier in an antique bronze finish with champagne marble glass shades. Brandywine 39033BLE-71 Fluorescent fifteen-light, 39034BLE-71 three-tier chandelier in an antique bronze finish with champagne marble glass shades. Brandywine 39034BLE-7 Laurel Leaf 31351-708 Nine-light, two-tier chandelier in a state bronze finish with etched ripple glass shades with estate bronze bands. Laurel Leaf 31351-708 Nine-light, two-tier 31351-782 chandelier in an heirloom bronze finish with etched ripple glass shades with heirloom bronze bands. Laurel Leaf 31351-782 Nine-light, two-tier 31351-965 chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with etched ripple glass shades with antique brushed nickel bands. Laurel Leaf 31351-965 Fifteen-light, three-tier 31352-708 chandelier in an estate bronze finish with etched ripple glass shades with estate bronze bands. Laurel Leaf 31352-708 Fifteen-light, three-tier 31352-782 chandelier in an heirloom bronze finish with etched ripple glass shades with heirloom bronze bands. Laurel Leaf 31352-782 Fifteen-light, three-tier 31352-965 chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with etched ripple glass shades with antique brushed nickel bands. Laurel Leaf 31352-965 New Verona RC2223/5+5GLOES Ten-light (five in the bottom glass base and one each in the 5 uplight shades), two- tier chandelier in an olde English silver finish with stone alabaster glass shades. New Verona RC2223/5+5GLOES Newport 31284-814 Nine-light, two-tier chandelier in a misted bronze finish with clear highlighted satin etched glass shades. Newport 31284-814 Nine-light, two-tier 31284BLE-814 chandelier in a misted bronze finish with clear highlighted satin etched glass shades. Newport 31284BLE-814 Nine-light, two-tier 31284-965 chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with clear highlighted satin etched glass shades. Newport 31284-965 Nine-light, two-tier 31284BLE-965 chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with clear highlighted satin etched glass shades. Newport 31284BLE-965 Twelve-light, thee-tier 31285-814 chandelier in a misted bronze finish with clear highlighted satin etched glass. Newport 31285-81 Fluorescent twelve-light, 31285BLE-814 three-tier chandelier in a misted bronze finish with clear highlighted satin etched glass shades. Newport 31285BLE-814 Twelve-light, three-tier 31285-965 chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with clear highlighted satin etched glass shades. Newport 31285-965 Parkview 31381-829 Nine-light, two-tier chandelier in a russet bronze finish with ginger glass shades. Parkview 31381-829 Fluorescent nine-light, two- 39381BLE-829 tier chandelier in a russet bronze finish with ginger glass shades. Parkview 39381BLE-829 Nine-light, two-tier 31381-965 chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with satin etched glass shades. Parkview 31381-965 Fluorescent nine-light, two- 39381B LE-965 tier chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with satin etched glass shades. Parkview 39381BLE-965 Fifteen-light, three-tier 31382-829 chandelier in a russet bronze finish with ginger glass shades. Parkview 31382-829 Fluorescent fifteen-light, 39382BLE-829 three-tier chandelier in a russet bronze finish with ginger glass shades. Parkview 39382BLE-829 Fifteen-light, three-tier c 31382-965 chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with satin etched glass shades. Parkview 31382-965 Fluorescent fifteen-light, 39382BLE-965 three-tier chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with satin etched glass shades. Parkview 39382BLE-965 Roslyn 31522-845 Nine-light, two-tier chandelier in a Flemish bronze finish with creme parchment glass shades with Flemish bronze bands. Roslyn 31522-845 Twelve-light, three-tier 31523-845 chandelier in a Flemish bronze finish with creme parchment glass shades with Flemish bronze bands. Roslyn 31523-845 Somerton 31377-839 Nine-light, two-tier chandelier in a blacksmith finish with cafe tint glass shades. Somerton 31377-839 Fluorescent nine-light, two- 31377BLE-839 tier chandelier in a blacksmith finish with cafe tint glass shades. Somerton 31377BLE-839 Nine-light, two-tier 31377-965 chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with satin etched glass shades. Somerton 31377-965 Fluorescent nine-light, two- 31377BLE-965 tier chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with satin etched glass shades. Somerton 31377BLE-965 Fifteen-light, three-tier 31378-839 chandelier in a blacksmith finish with cafe tint glass shades. Somerton 31378-839 Fifteen-light, three-tier 31378-965 chandelier in an antique brushed nickel finish with satin etched glass shades. Somerton 31378-965 Sea Gull Lighting has received four reports of the chandeliers falling from the ceiling. Approximately $1,600 in property damage has been reported. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/6IlM0m. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Aztec Electric Supply, Ferguson, Lowe's, State Electric Supply, Wesco and other retailers nationwide and online at Amazon.com, HomeDepot.com and other online retailers from November 2006 through August 2013 for between $250 and $750. Consumers should prevent people from going into the immediate area under the chandeliers. Contact Sea Gull Lighting immediately to receive a free replacement for chandeliers that have fallen, including shipping, or for free replacement hardware to repair the chandelier and instructions on being reimbursed for the full cost of the installation. SHEBOYGAN CITY, WI: Removes "Gilbertson" Suit to E.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Gilbertson, et al. v. City of Sheboygan, Case No. 14-CV-0792, was removed from the Circuit Court of Sheboygan County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00139-RTR to the proceeding. The case is brought to seek redress for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the full amount of regular and overtime wages required by law. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 1555 N River Center Dr., Suite 202 PO Box 12993 Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com The Defendant is represented by: Alan M. Levy, Esq. Oyvind Wistrom, Esq. LINDNER & MARSACK, S.C., 411 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1800 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 273-3910 Facsimile: (414) 273-0522 E-mail: alevy@lindner-marsack.com owistrom@lindner-marsack.com STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wajeedah Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1- 25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00768-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., February 3, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com STRATEGIC FUNDRAISING: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kody Schmitt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Strategic Fundraising, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-03049 (W.D. Mo., January 29, 2015), alleges that the Defendant unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff and class members without cause and without giving them 60 days advance written notice. Strategic Fundraising, Inc. is a direct-response fundraising firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Monsees, Esq. MONSEES & MAYER PC 4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 820 Kansas City, MO 64112-2207 Telephone: (816) 361-5555 Facsimile: (816) 361-5577 E-mail: tmonsees@monseesmayer.com TGI FRIDAY'S: Wage Theft Suit Gets Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Bryce Covert, writing for Think Progress, reports that on Jan. 20, a New York federal judge granted 42,000 TGI Friday's workers conditional certification in their collective action lawsuit alleging wage theft. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres ruled that they have shown common allegations that the chain restaurant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay them at least the minimum wage and overtime for extra work. Two class action lawsuits were filed last year: one by employees in Massachusetts and another by 17,700 employees in the New York metro area and Fredericksburg, VA. Both accuse the company of making employees work off the clock without giving them extra pay. In New York and Virginia, workers say they were required to arrive well before the start of business hours and work after the restaurants closed without getting minimum wage and/or overtime pay. They also accused the chain of using a centralized time-keeping system that shaved hours of their work from their records and made them work off the clock doing non-tipped tasks such as cleaning and preparing food in bulk. In Massachusetts, the lawsuit said that workers who put in more than 40 hours a week, the threshold for receiving time and a half in overtime pay, worked any additional hours off the clock. They also say waitstaff were forced to give some of their tips to host staff, who are paid the full hourly minimum wage, reducing the waitstaff's pay to below the required minimum wage. The workers are seeking to recover the wages they say they were due as well as misappropriated tips. The company didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The Jan. 20 win comes after the lawyer representing employees accused TGI Friday's of trying to "pick off" plaintiffs who joined the class action lawsuit by offering more than $416,000 in settlements to 19 workers. So far 15 have accepted the offers. Wage theft, or when employers don't pay the required minimum wage and overtime through various means, is a huge problem, particularly for low-wage workers. The sum of money recovered from employers who stole from their workers in 2012 was nearly three times greater than all the money stolen in reported robberies that year. Even that is an undercount, however, because so few people report it; the total sum of money stolen from employees annually is likely more than $50 billion. It's also a problem that's increasing: complaints of wage theft rose 400 percent over the last decade. Those who work in food service are particularly vulnerable. Nine out of ten fast food workers say they have experienced wage theft. And employees at various chain restaurants have also filed lawsuits, from McDonald's to sandwich store Jimmy John's to Chipotle to Papa John's to Subway. Wage theft violates the FLSA and is therefore illegal, but it is also clearly still widespread and it can be hard for workers to get justice. In California, 83 percent of workers who actually brought a claim and won still never saw a cent of their owed money. So to crack down on these practices, some cities and states have enacted ordinances of their own. THOMPSON CREEK: Case Venue of "Aronstein" Suit Moved to Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Connecticut district court ordered for the transfer of venue of the state-law securities fraud action David Aronstein and Lesley Stroll brought against Thompson Creek Metals Company Inc., et al., to the District of Colorado in a Jan. 16, 2015 ruling available at http://is.gd/srUV5vfrom Leagle.com. With the transfer venue ruling, District Judge Michael P. Shea denied Defendants' other motions as moot. Plaintiffs, private investors, are citizens of Connecticut who purchased TCM's stock through a 401(k) plan called Tri-State Modeling LLC. Plaintiffs purchased $6,314,303 worth of shares of TCM common stock in several transactions beginning in March 2011, and they liquidated their shares in May 2012. TCM is a publicly traded Canadian mining corporation, with its principal place of business in the United States in Littleton, Colorado. David Aronstein, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Lesley Stroll, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Thompson Creek Metals Company Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka -- akostecka@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Gregory J Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander King -- mking@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn -- vfinn@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza. Kevin Loughrey, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza. Pamela Saxton, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza. Pamela Solly, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza. James L. Freer, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza. James P. Geyer, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Timothy J. Haddon, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza. Carol T. Banducci, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Thomas J. ONeil, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Denis C. Arsenault, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Wendy Cassity, Defendant, represented by Allison K Kostecka, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric H Wu, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Michael Alexander King, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza & Vaughan Finn, Shipman & Goodwin nstPlza. Carol T. Banducci, Defendant, represented by Gregory J Kerwin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. TOYOTA MOTOR: Must Pay $11 Million to 1996 Camry Crash Victims -------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Forliti, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a federal jury decided on Feb. 3 that the design of the 1996 Toyota Camry had a dangerous defect that was partly to blame for a fatal 2006 crash, and the automaker must pay nearly $11 million to victims. Jurors said the company was 60 percent to blame for the accident, which left three people dead and two seriously injured. But they also found that Koua Fong Lee, who has long insisted he tried to stop his car before it slammed into another vehicle, was 40 percent at fault. Mr. Lee, his family members, the family of a girl who died, and two people who were seriously injured sued Toyota Motor Corp. in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis. The lawsuit alleged the crash was caused by an acceleration defect in Mr. Lee's vehicle, but Toyota argued there was no design defect and that Mr. Lee was negligent. "No amount of money . . . will bring my life back, my life is not the same anymore," Mr. Lee said after the verdict, adding that he wanted the victims and their families to know: "I tried everything I could to stop my car." Toyota released a statement saying the company respects the jury's decision but believes the evidence clearly showed the vehicle wasn't the accident's cause. The company said it will study the record and consider its legal options going forward. After the 2006 wreck, Mr. Lee was convicted of vehicular homicide and sentenced to prison. He won a new trial after reports surfaced about sudden acceleration in some Toyotas, and questions were raised about the adequacy of his defense. Prosecutors opted against a retrial and he went free after spending 2 1/2 years behind bars. He later sued. The civil trial lasted three weeks, and jurors spent four full days deliberating. Under Minnesota law, the way the jury allocated fault means Toyota is responsible for paying all damages, minus 40 percent of the amount awarded to Mr. Lee, said Mr. Lee's attorney, Bob Hilliard. That brings Toyota's total liability to $10.94 million. Mr. Lee will receive $750,000 of that total. During the trial, Mr. Hilliard, told jurors there was a defect in the car's design. He said the Camry's auto-drive assembly could stick, and when tapped or pushed while stuck, it could stick again at a higher speed. He also accused Toyota of never conducting reliability tests on nylon resin pulleys that could be damaged under heat and cause the throttle to stick. "This is what makes the car go. This is what turns it into a torpedo, a missile, a deadly weapon," Mr. Hilliard said during his closing argument. Toyota said there was no defect in the design of the 1996 Camry. The company's attorney, David Graves, suggested that Mr. Lee was an inexperienced driver and mistook the gas pedal for the brake. Toyota also noted that Mr. Lee's car was never subject to the recalls of later-model Toyotas. Mr. Hilliard said the verdict means that other 1996 Toyota Camrys have defects, and perhaps the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration needs to take a look at the car, while owners of those vehicles need to make sure they are safe. "I am 100 percent convinced in my heart and mind that there is a defect in this Camry, and that this defect caused this accident," he said. The crash killed the driver of the other vehicle, Javis Trice- Adams Sr., and his 9-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr. They were not part of this case. Trice-Adams' 6-year-old niece, Devyn Bolton, was paralyzed and died in October 2007. The jury awarded her estate $4 million. Trice-Adams' daughter, Jassmine Adams, who was 12 at the time, was seriously injured, as was his father, Quincy Ray Adams. Jassmine Adams was awarded $4 million, and Quincy Adams was awarded $1.25 million. Lesser damages were awarded to Mr. Lee and four family members who were in his car at the time. Terrell Damar Adams, a cousin of Javis Adams Sr., called the verdict a blessing. "I think it's kind of amazing that they found Toyota at fault," he said, but added that the monetary award "doesn't bring back our family." USA BABY: Labor Dept. Wins Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor sued Scott Wallis, Ronald Eriksen, USA Baby, Inc., USA Baby, Inc. 401(k) Plan, and USA Baby, Inc. Health Plan for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq. In a December 30, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order available at http://is.gd/4R3Xdlfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge Ruben Castillo granted the Secretary's separate motions seeking summary judgment against Wallis and Eriksen. In its summary judgment motion, the Secretary seeks a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from serving as fiduciaries to any ERISA-covered employee benefit plan now or in the future. The Secretary also seeks monetary damages from Defendants representing losses to the benefit plans. The Defendants opposed. The case is, THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT WALLIS, et al., Defendants, NO. 11 C 3019 (N.D. Ill.). Based in Lombard, Illinois, USA Baby Inc. sold infant and children's furniture. USA Baby was formed in 2003 to franchise stores selling furniture and other products for babies and children. It operated no stores of its own. On Sept. 5, 2008, three creditors, Wallis Kraham of Binghamton, N.Y., Jack B. Whisler of Arlington Heights, Ill., and Leslie Ruess of San Diego, filed an involuntary Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 08-23564), claiming breach of subscription agreement and seeking $122,875 in the aggregate. USA WATER POLO: Accused of Failing to Manage/Treat Head Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alice Mayall, as parent and guardian of minor H.C., on behalf of H.C. and all others similarly situated v. USA Water Polo, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00171-AG-RNB (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2015) arises from the alleged failure of USA Water Polo to take steps to recognize, manage and appropriately treat head injuries and concussions. Ms. Mayall is the parent of minor H.C. and is a resident of Livermore, California. H.C. has played water polo for the LARPD Lazers Water Polo Club. USA Water Polo is the governing body for the sport of water polo in the United States and regulates every aspect of water polo, including rules regarding player safety and health. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Ave., Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1144 W. Lake Street, Suite 400 Oak Park, IL 60301 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com toma@hbsslaw.com VAN'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued on Cal. Over Misleading Product Label --------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Campbell, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Van's International Foods, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00672 (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2015), alleges that the Defendant falsely and misleadingly advertised, marketed, and labeled its food products as totally natural and/or all natural when, in fact, they contain the synthetic chemical Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate. Van's International Foods, Inc. is an Arizona Corporation that makes and markets specialty frozen waffles, including Belgian, mini, organic, and wheat-free varieties. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Parisi, Esq. Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Suite 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com shavens@parisihavens.com VELTI PLC: $9.5MM Class Action Settlement, Counsel Fees Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick granted the motions of plaintiffs Bobby Yadegar/Ygar Capital LLC, St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Association, Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund, and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System for final approval of a partial class action settlement and for an award of attorney's fees and costs. The settlement creates a fund of $9.5 million to be distributed among a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Velti plc securities between January 27, 2011 and August 20, 2013. In light of Velti's bankruptcy and the limited financial resources of the individual defendants, the District Judge finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that plaintiffs' counsel's requested award for fees and costs is appropriate. The District Judge also held that the release of the unserved defendants is appropriate under the circumstances of this case, and that fairness dictates that the Court decide now that the nonsettling defendants are entitled to a Section 78u-4(f)(7)(B) reduction on all Securities Act claims pending against them. Plaintiffs' counsel seek an award of $2,375,000 in attorney's fees, or 25% of the $9,500,000 settlement fund. In addition, plaintiffs' counsel request $219,469.67 in expenses. The resulting lodestar is $1,914,221.25, meaning that plaintiffs' counsel are asking for a multiplier of approximately 1.25. Plaintiffs' counsel do not seek an incentive award for the class representatives. The case is, ANIKA R. RIECKBORN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VELTI PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-03889-WHO (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Court's February 3, 2015 Order is available at http://bit.ly/1M5Tsb3from Leagle.com. WADE ELBO: Faces "Mowery" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Annette Mowery, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wade Elbo LLC d/b/a Elbo Room and Marcie Wade, Case No. 3:15-cv-00190 (N.D. Ohio, January 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants own and operate a pizza restaurant and bar located at 3515 W. Alexis Road in Toledo, OH. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Ste. 1325, 815 Superior Avenue, E Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 498-9100 Facsimile: (216) 621-1094 E-mail: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Fausnight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, L.L.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-00066 (S.D. Tex., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, L.L.C. is an oilfield services company providing a variety of services to the oilfield, including pressure control services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com ********* 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 * * *