/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150217.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 34 Headlines ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Violation of FDCPA AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Lime-A-Rita Deceptive Labeling Class Action ANTHEM INC: Faces "Garson" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Juliano" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Kirby" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Morris" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach B&D PIZZERIA: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BANK LEUMI: Shareholders Mull Class Action Over Tax Evasion Probe BANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Reviews LIBOR Antitrust Appeal BEER STORE: Finance Minister Balks at Not-for-Profit Argument BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Automatic Renewal Policies BURGER KING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Roman" Suit Says CAJMANT LLC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls Dodge Ram Trucks Over Steering System CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says FACEBOOK INC: European Privacy Class Suit Hearing Set for April 9 FERGUSON CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued in Ark. Over Herbal Products Misbranding GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over ReCAPTCHA Program GUAM: Ancestral Landowners Meet to Discuss Class Action ILLINOIS: May Face Class Suit Over Sex Offender Housing Shortage INDUSTRIAL BAKERY: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT JENNINGS CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Must Face Home Care Nurses' Wage Suit LOVE HONEY: Falsely Marketed Pleasure Gel Products, Action Says MEDBOX INC: Founder Comments on Shareholder Class Action METROPOLITAN JANITORIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over 2004-07 High Risk Loans MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Set to Rule on Mortgage Loan Class Action NASDAQ OMX: Sued in Pa. Over Illegal Manipulation of Dividends NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Class Action Refund Deadline Passes NATURE MADE: Falsely Marketed Ginkgo Biloba Products, Suit Claims NEFF & SON: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NESTLE PURINA: Sued Over Dog Deaths Caused by Toxins in Pet Food NEW DOMINION: High Court to Hear Prague Earthquake Suit NEW JERSEY: Child Welfare System Shows Progress, Judge Says NEW ORLEANS, LA: Settles Landfill Class Action for $8 Million NEW YORK: Denies Class Member's Rights to Vote, Action Claims ON TIME COURIER: Faces "Bucio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PALMS GENTLEMENS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PATINELLA'S CHICKEN: "Craig" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PEACE FOOD: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages PINNACLE RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims REGENCY ENERGY: Accuses of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settles Suit Over Morgan Keegan Funds' Collapse SAKUMA BROTHERS: Class Action May Affect Mid-Columbia Farmers SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims SIRIUS XM: Courtroom Setbacks Spur Copyright Lawsuits SOUTH PALAFOX: 300+ People Join Class Action Over Landfill Odor SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in N.D. Texas Over Rapid Reward Program STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Inflated Ratings Suits for $1.38BB STAPLES INC: Faces "McCutcheon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime STRATASYS LTD: Sued in D. Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports TAAG INDUSTRIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims TACONAZO INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "McFarland" Suit Over Defective Airbags TARGET CORP: Judge Allows Data Breach Class Action to Proceed TARGET CORP: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding TIME WARNER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports TURNBERRY ON THE GREEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime UTZ QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Product Label WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding WALGREEN CO: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding WALGREEN CO: Faces "Hale" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding WEGMANS FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Fresh Bread Advertising YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says ZERO OTTO: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages * Foreign Teachers File Class Action v. Recruitment Firm ********* ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Violation of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ Michele Marie Cassale, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Accretive Health, Inc. d/b/a Medical Financial Solutions, Case No. 2:15-cv-10496 (E.D. Mich., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Accretive Health, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in debt collection on behalf of third party health care providers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle E. Vocht, Esq. ROY, SHECTER & VOCHT, P.C. 707 S. Eton St. Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 540-7660 Facsimile: (248) 540-0321 E-mail: vocht@rsmv.com AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Gee and Joseph Anthony Montegna Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Automobile Association, Case No. 3:15-cv-00246 (S.D. Cal., February 6, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making automatic renewal offers and continuous service offers, without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms. American Automobile Association is a federation of motor clubs throughout North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Sara Khosroabadi, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com sara@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, 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 mona@kazlg.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Faces Lime-A-Rita Deceptive Labeling Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reg Wydeven, writing for PostCrescent.com, reports that Anheuser- Busch finds itself in court over its beer-margarita hybrid. Sheila Cruz filed a class action lawsuit against the beer maker alleging it was deceptive in labeling its products. According to her suit, Anheuser-Busch claims Bud Light Lime-A-Rita is low in calories, but actually has more calories than any of its other products. Ms. Cruz's court papers show that an eight-ounce can of Lime-A- Rita has about 220 calories and 21.9 grams of carbohydrates. A 12-ounce can of Budweiser, though, has about 145 calories and 10.6 grams of carbohydrates. A can of Bud Light has about 110 calories and 6.6 grams of carbohydrates, while a can of Bud Light Lime has about 116 calories and 8 grams of carbohydrates. According to the suit, Anheuser-Busch deceptively concealed, omitted and misrepresented the calories in the products. Ms. Cruz's suit is seeking class action status for any consumer who purchased any flavor of Bud Light Lime-A-Rita since it was first introduced in 2008. Ms. Cruz originally filed in state court in Los Angeles, but as expected, Anheuser-Busch successfully requested to have the case removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act. Just based on the fact that a smaller can of Bud Light Lime-A-Rita contains about 50 percent more calories than a regular can of Budweiser and twice as many calories as a can of Bud Light, Ms. Cruz's chances seem promising. But compared to a typical margarita that has about 450 calories, a Bud Light Lime-A-Rita certainly seems "light." ANTHEM INC: Faces "Garson" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Garson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. and Blue Cross of California, Case No. 1:15-cv-00180 (S.D. Ind., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. Blue Cross of California is a California corporation that offers family Health insurance. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Duff, Esq. INDIANA CONSUMER LAW GROUP THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. DUFF P.O. Box 7251 Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (800) 817-0461 Facsimile: (800) 817-0461 E-mail: robert@robertdufflaw.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com bthomassen@edelson.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Juliano" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Danny Juliano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Anthem Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00219 (N.D. Ala., February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. owns and operates a managed health care company that routinely conducts business in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald W. Stewart, Esq. STEWART & STEWART PC 1000 Quintard Avenue, Suite 500, PO Box 2274 Anniston, AL 36202 Telephone: (256) 237-9311 Facsimile: (256) 237-0713 E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com - and - Greg William Foster, Esq. T. Dylan Reeves, Esq. STEWART AND STEWART PC The Realty Building Suite 300 1826 3rd Avenue North, PO Box 721 (35021) Bessemer, AL 35020 Telephone: (205) 425-1166 Facsimile: (205) 425-5959 E-mail: greg@stewartandstewart.net dreeves@stewartandstewart.net ANTHEM INC: Faces "Kirby" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Kirby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00820 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. owns and operates a managed health care company that routinely conducts business in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, SBN 172098 Tina Wolfson, SBN 174806 Theodore W. Maya, SBN 223242 Bradley K. King, SBN 274399 AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Morris" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00196 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. owns and operates a managed health care company that routinely conducts business in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. Adrianne De Castro, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol St., Ste. 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com adrianne@desai-law.com B&D PIZZERIA: Faces "Ojeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Constantino Serrano Ojeda, Leonardo Cano, Vinicio Silva, Victor Lima Elizalde, and Fernando Arellanes-Jimenez, on behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated employees v. B&D Pizzeria & Restaurant Corp., d/b/a Luigi's Pizzeria & Restaurant, Salvador Romano, Louis Romano, and Rosa Brusca, Case No. 1:15-cv-00861 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), seeks to recover minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate multiple pizza restaurants in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com BANK LEUMI: Shareholders Mull Class Action Over Tax Evasion Probe ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ari Rabinovitch, writing for Reuters, reports that shareholders in Israel's Bank Leumi are seeking to file a class action lawsuit worth about 475 million shekels ($119 million) against the bank over its handling of a U.S. probe into alleged tax evasion, Bank Leumi said on Jan. 25. Leumi, Israel's second largest lender, said the lawsuit argues that the bank hurt its stock price when it announced in March 2012 that it was setting aside money for a possible settlement with the U.S. authorities over tax evasion. Leumi shares lost about 29 percent in the five months following the announcement, hitting a low of 8.44 shekels in August 2012, although they have since rebounded. The stock was down 1.3 percent in midday trade in Tel Aviv at 13.13 shekels. In a statement to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, Leumi said the suit alleges that "the conduct of the bank and the directors on matters regarding the investigation of U.S. authorities caused damage to the bank's shareholders." The petitioner estimates the class action to be worth about 475 million shekels, Leumi said. A Tel Aviv district court must approve whether it will allow the class action suit to proceed. A Leumi spokesman said the bank was obligated to issue the statement under the rules of the bourse and declined to make any further comment. Leumi in December agreed to pay $400 million to the U.S. Department of Justice and New York state to settle two separate investigations into whether the bank helped its U.S. clients evade taxes through its Swiss offices. BANK OF AMERICA: Supreme Court Reviews LIBOR Antitrust Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer A. Dixon, Esq. -- jdixon@pbwt.com -- Deirdre A. Mcevoy, Esq., and Harry Sandick, Esq. -- hsandick@pbwt.com -- of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, report that on January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a highly anticipated decision in a LIBOR-based antitrust class action suit allowing a plaintiff to immediately take a direct appeal from an order dismissing that plaintiff's complaint in its entirety even when that case has been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and other cases remain pending in the consolidated action. The decision in Gelboim et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al. arises out of a multidistrict litigation that consolidates all cases involving allegations that defendant banks understated their borrowing costs and suppressed LIBOR, thereby allowing the banks to pay lower interest rates on financial instruments sold to investors. One complaint in the consolidated litigation -- the Gelboim-Zacher complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of bonds with LIBOR-linked interest rates -- alleged but a single federal antitrust claim under Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the putative class action complaint alleged that the defendant banks colluded to suppress LIBOR for two reasons: (1) to understate their borrowing costs and portray themselves as economically healthier than they actually were and (2) to pay lower interest rates on LIBOR-based financial instruments sold to investors. According to the complaint, defendants engaged in highly anomalous behavior by consistently submitting uniformly low LIBOR rates, which, plaintiffs claimed, would be unusual absent collusive and illegal communications. Plaintiff investors claimed that defendants' conduct impacted interstate commerce within the United States by reducing the amount of interest paid on debt securities and other obligations, and that plaintiffs suffered injury because absent defendants' collusion, plaintiffs and class members would have earned more interest. This Sherman Act claim was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which concluded that no plaintiff could assert a cognizable antitrust injury. The district court emphasized that the "process of setting LIBOR was never intended to be competitive," and that even if defendants conspired to submit artificial estimates as alleged by plaintiffs, plaintiffs' injuries "would have resulted from defendants' misrepresentation, not from harm to competition." Their only claim having been dismissed, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and the district court also granted partial final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), thereby permitting other plaintiffs to appeal the dismissal of antitrust claims while their other claims remained pending in the district court. The Second Circuit, however, dismissed the Gelboim-Zacher appeal on the grounds that the "orde[r] appealed from did not dispose of all claims in the consolidated action." Before the Supreme Court, the bank defendants argued that the consolidated cases should be treated as a single unit: until all claims brought by all plaintiffs are dismissed, there is no right to appeal. The plaintiffs contended that once their case was dismissed in its entirety, they had a right to file a direct appeal under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291, which permits an immediate appeal from a final decision of a district court. This question had divided the Courts of Appeals prior to the ruling. The Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs. Justice Ginsburg wrote that Section 1407, which permits the consolidation of cases in a multidistrict litigation, does not create a monolithic multidistrict action. Each case retains its own identity and is not "meld[ed] . . . into a single unit." The decision here ended entirely the plaintiffs' case and therefore "had the hallmarks of a final decision" by "terminat[ing] their action." A contrary rule, the Court explained, would leave plaintiffs "in a quandary about the proper timing of their appeals." Should an appeal be filed immediately upon the order dismissing their action, or must it await the conclusion of consolidated pretrial proceedings? The Court's rule provides certainty to plaintiffs about the timing of their appeal and does not require them to wait until some uncertain point, far into the future. The Second Circuit will now address the merits of the plaintiffs' investors antitrust claim that the defendant banks' purported artificial suppression of LIBOR to pay lower interest rates on LIBOR-based financial instruments sold to investors during the class period constituted a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Issues on appeal will concern whether or not plaintiffs can demonstrate injury stemming from an "anticompetitive" aspect of defendants' conduct with respect to LIBOR rates. BEER STORE: Finance Minister Balks at Not-for-Profit Argument ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Brennan, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Finance Minister Charles Sousa says he's not buying the foreign-owned Beer Store's argument that it's a not-for-profit operation. "They will argue that they are a not-for-profit organization and we argue that there is some profit in there so we want to make sure that's distributed accordingly," he told reporters on Jan. 23 in Toronto where he launched his pre-budget consultations on Jan. 23. Beer Store spokesperson Jeff Newton insists it operates on a break-even basis and that the premier's special council on government assets has confirmed this. "The government continues to recognize that the Beer Store is a highly efficient system that has benefits for consumers. And the premier's council on government assets has confirmed the Beer Store operates on a 'break-even basis.' We look forward to more discussions that will help retain those elements of the current system," Mr. Newton said in an email statement. Premier Kathleen Wynne has said Ontario consumers should expect a rethink of the government's relationship with the 448-outlet Beer Store owned by the foreign parent companies of Labatt, Molson and Sleeman. Former TD Bank chair Ed Clark, who was at Queen's Park on Jan. 23, is leading Wynne's advisory council on government assets. He has recommended the province charge the Beer Store a "franchise fee," a cost the companies would not be allowed to pass on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Should these giant brewers refuse, Mr. Clark says the province could strip them of their monopoly. As well, he says the government-owned LCBO should be allowed to sell 12-packs Under the terms of a secret 2000 deal between the LCBO and the Beer Store, which was revealed by the Star in December, the more lucrative 12-packs and 24-packs cannot be sold at liquor stores. That accord, which is subject of a complaint to the federal Competition Bureau by Restaurants Canada, also dictates that bars and restaurants must buy directly from the brewers at higher prices than ordinary consumers pay. Besides that, the private monopoly is facing two court challenges. The Beer Store issued a press release on Jan. 23 arguing that some of the efficiencies realized from its 448 outlets Beer Store are offset by taxes and lower prices to consumers. It noted that in 2013 Ontario had a $3.58 higher tax per case, plus a 65 cent lower average retail price per case than Quebec. "That means that on average brewers collected $4.23 less per case on beer sold through the Beer Store than through Quebec corner and grocery stores, an amount that is greater than the Beer Store's lower costs," the release stated. "These data illustrate that the Beer Store's efficiencies are not flowing to brewers as higher profits -- they are flowing to government as high taxes and consumers as lower prices." In December, amidst Ms. Wynne's threats to dismantle the beer monopoly unless more money pours into the treasury and small brewers are given greater access, the Beer Store opened up its ownership to Ontario craft brewers. The major breweries will still control the company's board of directors with Molson and Labatt, which each own 46 per cent, having five seats apiece, Sleeman, an 8 per cent owner, with two seats, the larger craft brewers getting two seats, and the small brewers one. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Automatic Renewal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ Abel Abrego, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00230 (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making automatic renewal offers and continuous service offers without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that develops and publishes video games. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, 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 mona@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Sara Khosroabadi, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com sara@westcoastlitigation.com BURGER KING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Roman" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Joseph Torres Roman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Burger King Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-20455 (S.D. Fla., February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Burger King Corporation is a Florida For Profit Corporation that owns and operates all Burger King Restaurants in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Lloyd Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A. 501 North Reo Street Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com CAJMANT LLC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Maldonado Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cajmant LLC, John Schmidt, Rose Schmidt, Wheatfield Distributors LLC, and Marcelo Cajamarca, Case No. 1:15- cv-00593 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a delivery business that contracts with bakeries in and around New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1020 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 Facsimile: (212) 267-8115 E-mail: rw@rwapc.com CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on Jan. 24 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of ChannelAdvisor Corporation securities between November 6, 2014 and January 12, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ChannelAdvisor investors under the federal securities laws. To join the ChannelAdvisor class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-475.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, ChannelAdvisor and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements about the Company's true financial condition and prospects. On January 12, 2015, the Company lowered its fourth quarter 2014 revenue guidance to $23.7 million from its prior revenue guidance of $25.6 to $26.1 million. The Company attributed the revision to lower variable subscription revenue due to a shift to larger customers. On this news, shares of ChannelAdvisor fell $11.32 per share or over 53% from its previous closing price to close at $9.83 per share on January 13, 2015, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 24, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-475.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls Dodge Ram Trucks Over Steering System ------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that it's one thing to implement a recall when a product is found to be defective. It's quite another when the recall so ordered is alleged to be more problem than it's worth. Such are the allegations over the Chrysler Dodge Ram Recalls after owners of the venerable trucks characterize the recall effort as "bungled." The Dodge Ram is a hallmark of the Dodge brand -- a tough truck with a persona of strength and ruggedness. And yet a plethora of owners have complained they lose steering control simply driving down the highway. The problem is alleged to be defective tie rods and tie rod studs that are too weak to withstand everyday driving conditions -- the basis for the defective steering system tie rods recall. Affected Dodge Ram owners, however, note that not only has it been difficult to schedule an appointment to have their trucks repaired, replacement parts were hard to come by and plaintiffs allege replacement parts are no better than the allegedly defective parts. A defective products class-action lawsuit based out of California stands by allegations that not only are the affected parts - and therefore the affected trucks -- defective, but that the defective automotive recall was riddled with deficiencies. The class action was responding to Chrysler's attempt, in November of last year, to have the lawsuit dismissed. A month later, in the waning days of 2014, plaintiffs shot back. "Chrysler's purported recall process has done more harm than good -- effectively lulling consumers into a false sense of safety and leaving them without a proper remedy," the plaintiffs said in their filing. "The recalls have been grossly inadequate because they failed to properly address all impacted vehicles, and the replacement parts from Chrysler were themselves defective, presenting identical failures." Well over 1,000 complaints were filed since the start of 2014, related to the unavailability of parts intended to fulfill the mandate of the defective automotive recall. Last October the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an investigation into allegations over lack of parts. The plaintiffs also had a response to Chrysler's claim that any promises of vehicle safety in promotion and advertising are merely an implied warranty or, put another way, "corporate puffery." Thus, according to the defendants, any claim to a breach of implied warranty remains barred by its express warranty. The plaintiffs are having none of it, pointing to various statements the company has made in its marketing about the safety of its vehicles as well as the fact that Chrysler's motto is "Safety first. Safety always." Well, maybe not -- as ongoing problems with the Chrysler Dodge Ram Recalls appear to show. The case is Shaun Sater et al. v. Chrysler Group LLC, case number 5:14-cv-00700, in the US District Court for the Central District of California. CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Wiederhold, individually and on behalf of all others Similarly situated v. Consolidated World Travel Inc. d/b/a Holiday Cruise Line, Case No. 2:15-cv-00828 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending text message to the person's cellular telephone through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or with an artificial or prerecorded message. Consolidated World Travel Inc. is a national cruise sales company doing business in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, 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 ml@kazlg.com - and - 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: josh@westcoastlitigation.com FACEBOOK INC: European Privacy Class Suit Hearing Set for April 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- TechCrunch.com reports that Europe vs. Facebook, the group leading the suit now with 25,000 claimants in tow, has had its first hearing set for April 9, in a court in Vienna, marking the first time Facebook will appear in court over the case. The class action covers a number of areas ranging from data use policy under EU law to PRISM surveillance support and the unlawful introduction of "Graph Search." According to Europe vs. Facebook, the social network refutes the claims, arguing that the lawsuit is inadmissible because it cannot be sued by its users. The purpose of the April 9 hearing is for the court to decide whether Facebook has valid objections about the admissibility of the lawsuit. Contacted for a response, Facebook says it has nothing more to add right now. So far, the class action has been limited to 25,000 who can claim up to EUR500 each in damages, resulting in a case that could cost Facebook $14 million. The claimants are also demanding a "suspension of data usage" by the social network. Perhaps most importantly, if won -- or even if simply prolonged in the public arena -- the case could do a lot in PR damage. And if Facebook actually loses the case, it could result in orders for Facebook to change its practices in the region. While Facebook will likely continue to try to get the class action suit thrown out of court, the group is still pressing on. "We have reviewed all objections from Facebook in great detail and came to the conclusion that they lack any substance. It seems that they try to delay the procedure with partly really bizarre arguments," Dr. Proksch, the lawyer representing the users, said in a statement. This class action suit was first filed last year, and was quickly oversubscribed with people applying to join it, getting over 60,000 users to sign up in the first month, partly by making it easy to do so through different channels like mobile. The group said on Jan. 26 that in addition to the 25,000 named as claimants, there are now 50,000 signed up waiting to see if the suit expands to cover more people. It claims to be the largest-ever class action filed in Europe. The conflict that led to the suit in the first place stretches back much longer than last summer. Europe vs. Facebook, the Austria-based group headed up by law student Max Schrems, has been filing privacy complaints against the social network for years, taking his case to Dublin, Ireland -- where Facebook's international HQ is based, giving the complaints potentially wide-reaching ramifications. But those complaints have had mixed success, which is why this class action is significant: it demonstrates a bigger will of the people behind the privacy group's claims, and it shifts the center of gravity away from Dublin to the continent, where Facebook has been given a harder ride where data protection and user privacy are concerned -- for example in Austria's neighbor, Germany. The longer list of complaints highlights not only new features introduced by Facebook in recent years, but also touches on bigger themes such as how the government co-opts Internet services to gather information, the rise of big data and their potentially creepy role in ad-based revenue models. -- Data use policy which is invalid under EU law -- The absence of effective consent to many types of data use Support of the NSA's 'PRISM' surveillance programme Tracking of Internet users on external websites (e.g. through 'Like buttons') -- Monitoring and analysis of users through 'big data' systems -- Unlawful introduction of 'Graph Search' -- Unauthorized passing on of user data to external applications FERGUSON CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keilee Fant, Roelif Carter, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson Jr., Alfred Morris, Anthony Kimble, Donyale Thomas, Shameika Morris, Daniel Jenkins, Ronnie Tucker, Tonya Deberry, et al., v. The City Of Ferguson, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253 (E.D. Mo., February 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of all impoverished people who were jailed indefinitely and none was afforded a lawyer or the inquiry into their ability to pay by the City of Ferguson because they were unable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffic tickets or other minor offenses. City of Ferguson is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 916 G St., NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 681-2409 E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org - and - Brendan D. Roediger, Esq. John J. Ammann, Esq. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 100 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 977-2778 Facsimile: (314) 977-1180 E-mail: broedige@slu.edu ammannjj@slu.edu - and - Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. 7751 Carondelet, Suite 201 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 482-3342 Facsimile: (314) 932-2702 E-mail: tbh1910@gmail.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions ----------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus transmission lawsuit has been filed after numerous reports of transmissions that slip, jerk, shudder and perform a host of other unwanted problems. The class-action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Omar Vargas, Robert Bertone, Michelle Harris and Sharon Heberling who want the alleged transmission problems fixed in the 2011-2013 Ford Fiesta and the 2012-2013 Ford Focus. The lawsuit alleges the $1,095 dual clutch transmission (powershift transmission) is marketed as an advanced automatic transmission offering the fuel economy of a manual transmission with the easy operation of an automatic transmission. However, the lawsuit alleges the transmission was manufactured defective and is causing Fiesta and Focus owners nothing but headaches. Owners complain about vehicles that lurch forward, experience delayed acceleration, delayed downshifting and vehicles that have trouble stopping. Owners of the Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus have complained to CarComplaints.com about the same problems mentioned in the transmission lawsuit. "Huge problem that Ford knows about and continues to ignore. They replaced it with the same stock parts, meaning that this issue will come up again after the warranty. I've had problems with this car multiple times regarding the transmission and have visited the dealership over and over again due to this problem." - 2011 Ford Fiesta owner / Toronto, Canada "First attempt of repair, shuddering in acceleration, delay in acceleration, grinding in shifting. Had 3 other attempts of the repair from continuous issues. Reported to ford for lemon law." - 2011 Ford Fiesta owner / Lemon Grove, California "FORD has manufactured a terrible automatic transmission. Took it in today was told there is no fix. Personally, I think FORD has its dealers denying problems and not properly documenting complaints to avoid a tremendous recall. The Assistant Service manager told me that they get a tremendous amount of complaints on this, And are kept busy all the time." - 2012 Ford Focus owner / Tampa, Florida The Ford transmission lawsuit alleges Ford knew or should have known as early as 2010 the powershift transmissions had serious problems. The plaintiffs claim the alleged defect causes premature wear to transmission clutch plates and other components, leading to early failure and costly repairs. The Ford Fiesta / Ford Focus transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California, Western Division - Vargas et al. vs. Ford Motor Company. The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC. GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued in Ark. Over Herbal Products Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alyssa Clemmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition Corporation, General Nutrition Centers, Inc., and GNC Holdings, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv- 05036 (W.D. Ark., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants mislabeled its Herbal dietary supplement products because they failed to contain the medical herbs represented by the label. The Defendants are Pennsylvania corporations focused on the retail sale of health and nutrition related products, including vitamins, supplements, minerals, herbs, sports nutrition, diet, and energy products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 845-3305 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, PA 1101 Garland, Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA 12870 US Hwy 98 West Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over ReCAPTCHA Program ----------------------------------------------------- Clinton Nguyen, writing for BostInno, reports that Gabriela Rojas- Lozano of Williamstown, Mass., has filed a lawsuit against Google accusing the company of unlawful use of free labor in its reCAPTCHA program. The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of "all persons who have responded to a reCAPTCHA prompt in order to access a website or certain features of a website while they were United States residents." The program -- which satisfies major websites' needs to close their gates to spam bots and Google's need to digitize its physical stores of literature, newspapers and academic articles -- requires users to transcribe distorted words and numbers to prove they're human. The reCAPTCHA software works by combining a control word, which the program can decipher, with a word from printed material that it can't decipher. Users need to transcribe the control word correctly to pass, but the indecipherable word isn't part of its security requirements, according to the Boston Business Journal. The program determines what that indecipherable word is by drawing the most frequently submitted answer. That ends up transcribing part of a book or address numbers on Google Maps piecemeal. The lawsuit alleges that Google unfairly profits from reCAPTCHA by co-opting free labor from the many users that have to use it to access and perform regular tasks on sites. In addition, companies like The New York Times pay Google to digitize their archives. "Google, in essence, operates a highly profitable transcription business built upon free labor, which it deceptively and unfairly obtains from unwitting websites users, in violation of their rights as consumers, who are offered no choice but to transcribe words for the sole purpose of enriching Google," the lawsuit says. And the lawsuit's central allegation is Google's nondisclosure of its profits. "Although Google derives substantial profit from the transcriptions of images generated by users of websites that employ reCAPTCHA, Google does not disclose to website users that Google is profiting from their time and effort," the lawsuit says. "Nor does Google compensate users for such time and effort." GUAM: Ancestral Landowners Meet to Discuss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Malorie Paine, writing for Pacific Sunday News, reports that Bertha Carriaga Cruz, an ancestral landowner, said she's afraid she'll become her family's third generation not to receive compensation for land long held under government control. Ms. Cruz was one of nearly 100 ancestral landowners who gathered on Jan. 24 at Harvest Christian Academy in Mongmong-Toto-Maite to discuss a recent class-action complaint filed against the government of Guam. She was attending the meeting in hopes of bringing awareness to the issue of receiving compensation for ancestral lands, Ms. Cruz said. Her father, Albert J. Carriaga, and her grandfather, Juan P. Carriaga, died before receiving compensation owed to them. "I'm looking at not being compensated, either," she said. "I'm afraid I'll be an heir who won't get compensated. It's been three generations without compensation. I don't think a lot of people know this is happening." Island landowners had almost 1,000 acres of property in Tiyan, according to Pacific Daily News files. The land has been under the control and use of the government-run airport agency for decades. Vicente "Benny" Crawford, an ancestral landowner, said on Jan. 24 the purpose of the meeting was to provide an update on details of the formal complaint that had been filed. Mr. Crawford, through attorneys, filed a class-action complaint against GovGuam, including the governor and the A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport Authority. The complaint requests a jury trial and asks that the ancestral landowners receive compensation for land being used by the airport, Mr. Crawford said. The land, formerly used as Naval Air Station Agana, is currently used as part of the runway, terminals and other facilities of the A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport. The land is in use and can therefore not be returned to the ancestral owners. "We are no longer asking for the land, but for money," Mr. Crawford said. Some of the landowners in attendance at the Jan. 24 meeting have fought for compensation since 2001, he said. Legal matters San Francisco-based law firm Girard Gibbs LLP and the Guam Law Offices of Ignacio Cruz Aguigui will provide legal representation for the landowners. Mr. Crawford said on Jan. 24 he was going to let the lawyers handle the legal end because he feels confident in their abilities. The complaint cites several local laws that have been passed during the past two decades, which require GovGuam to make good- faith efforts to compensate ancestral landowners. "The government of Guam, the GALC and the GIAA have deprived class members of the enjoyments of their rights to their ancestral property and have continued to deprive them of their compensation," according to the complaint. The lawsuit also questions whether GovGuam violated due process rights of the ancestral landowners and the Equal Protection Clause by compensating some ancestral landowners but not others. The lawsuit aims to determine whether the airport has been unjustly enriched by its use of the ancestral lands. The Ancestral Lands Commission, which returns excess federal property to its original owners, has collected more than $3 million through lease payments that is available to compensate landowners, according to news files. Despite the airport receiving millions in revenue from its tenants, the landowners "remain empty-handed," the complaint states. Ms. Cruz said she has hopes that by bringing attention to the issue, something will be done for her family and others in similar situations. ILLINOIS: May Face Class Suit Over Sex Offender Housing Shortage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Mills, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that state prison officials hold close to 1,250 inmates beyond their release dates every year -- not because they pose a threat to the public but because they cannot find a place to live that parole officers find suitable, according to court papers and interviews. For Illinois taxpayers, the extended stays add as much as $25 million a year in prison costs, compared with the far lower tab for parole. It's a practice commonly known as "violating at the door" because guards at one time walked inmates who had completed their sentences to the prison gates, only to return them to their cells for failing to find a suitable home -- considered a parole violation. Now, according to prison officials, such dramatic "turnarounds" rarely if ever take place, yet hundreds of inmates continue to be held every year for months or even years beyond their release dates. They must be set free by the time their terms of parole end, sometimes as long as three years later. The practice, which mostly affects convicted sex offenders, raises a host of concerns, most notably that inmates released only after their parole has ended will miss out on those benefits on their sudden return to the outside world. "It defeats the very purpose of parole by putting the inmate back in prison instead of in that transition period where you are supposed to receive rehabilitation," said E. King Poor, a Chicago attorney who has represented inmates affected by the practice. "It's bad for the inmate, it's bad for society." Exacerbating the problem is the woefully limited space for sex offenders in the state's halfway houses. According to state prison officials, only nine beds are reserved for sex offenders throughout the state -- none of them in Cook County, where the largest number of parolees go to live. Critics charge that the turnaround practice -- as it is also known -- has an outsized impact on the poor because they already face many obstacles in finding housing. Add to that the fact that convicted sex offenders face housing restrictions unlike other inmates, and finding a suitable home becomes an even greater challenge. Critics allege, too, that parole officers sometimes act arbitrarily in ruling out a home as suitable, a charge prison officials dispute. Illinois Department of Corrections officials admit frustration over the hundreds of inmates whose releases are delayed but say their hands are tied by restrictions that prohibit some sex offenders from living near schools, parks and other places where children congregate. Inmates who miss out on probation can pose more of a threat to the public once they're finally released than inmates who were able to transition back into society, acknowledges the department, which also handles parolees. "They're going to get out eventually, so here's the key: Do you want to discharge somebody after they've gone through parole and been helped and assisted, or without those services and without the state having a legal right to supervise anything you do?" said Tom Shaer, a department spokesman. "We believe it's better to go back to society in a supervised fashion. We believe in the parole mission." According to Mr. Shaer, about 1,000 convicted sex offenders are held each year beyond their release date -- a rate that officials have said has been fairly consistent over about the past decade. The same fate befalls about another 250 inmates without a sex crime background, mostly because their potential homes are not suitable for electronic monitoring, a requirement of their parole, he said. Prison costs almost $22,000 a year for each inmate, compared with about $2,000 a year for those on parole, according to Mr. Shaer. Officials have said the convicted sex offenders are not held beyond their release dates because they pose a danger to the public. If they were regarded as still a threat, authorities could seek to have them deemed a sexually violent person under the law and committed indefinitely, according to Mr. Shaer. "There's no determination of risk in this," said Alexa van Brunt, an attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University's law school who has worked on the issue. According to corrections officials, the practice began about a decade ago under Roger Walker, then the department's director. It is a byproduct of state laws and parole rules that require inmates to have a suitable place to live before they are released on mandatory supervised release, also known as parole. Inmates can be held for the duration of their parole, often three years, if a parole officer finds their housing unsuitable. In those cases, they'd receive none of the services they would get on parole by the time they finally are set free. For a department with an annual budget exceeding $1.25 billion but struggling with overcrowding and money woes, the turnarounds appear to be a drain in many ways. "It makes no sense from a financial, legal or moral perspective," said Alan Mills, executive director of Uptown People's Law Center, which represents the poor on prison and other issues. Mr. Shaer insisted the department's officers work hard to try to find suitable housing for parolees, but he acknowledged, "We have budget issues and we have legal issues on this." Inmates have challenged the practice in court but have been unsuccessful. Most recently, inmate Johnny Cordrey asked the Illinois Supreme Court to rule the practice unconstitutional, saying it violated his equal protection and due process rights. Mr. Cordrey, who in 1993 was sentenced to 36 years in prison for kidnapping and rape, claimed he was imprisoned beyond his parole date because he was indigent and could not find housing. Mr. Cordrey was scheduled to be paroled for three years beginning in April 2013, but he could not find a home that met requirements. On the day he was to be released, he instead was served with a parole violation and kept locked up at Menard Correctional Center downstate. He remained there for another 11/2 years before he was finally set free in October 2014. "The guy had no support, no tools, so we just threw him out on the streets," said Mr. Poor, who represented Mr. Cordrey before the state's highest court. "I said, 'Johnny, what are you going to do?' He said, 'I don't know.' That same story gets repeated over and over with other inmates." Mr. Cordrey was given a one-way bus ticket, traveling to Peoria in hopes of finding space at a Salvation Army shelter, Mr. Poor said. While Mr. Cordrey had already been released, the state supreme court took the case because it determined it was a matter of public interest. In the end, though, the court, while noting the policy appeared to present a genuine issue, concluded the state legislature might be a better forum to deal with it. Mr. Poor said he hoped to work with the state attorney general's office to find a solution without returning to court, but he said a class-action lawsuit was also a possibility. He said the state could "buy lots of therapy and halfway houses" with the money spent on the extended prison stays. A spokesman for Attorney General Lisa Madigan said the office was open to taking part in discussions to resolve the issue. "Ultimately, any discussion would need to include legislators and people who play a critical role in the criminal justice system," said the spokeswoman, Maura Possley. Herman Townsell, who spent 71/2 years in prison for a 1994 home invasion, kidnapping and sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl and has been in and out of prison since for various offenses, was set to be released from state prison in October 2013, but he could not find a place to live that a parole officer deemed suitable. He ended up spending another year in prison, according to documents. Now he moves between his mother's South Side residence or the homes of friends and relatives when he isn't homeless and sleeping on the train or wherever he can stay warm. He said he works when he can. "I don't know what they want me to do. I really don't. The restrictions are impossible," said Mr. Townsell, 47. "I get tired of going back to prison. But it's almost impossible to find a place to live. Murderers don't have it as hard." INDUSTRIAL BAKERY: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosa Maria Carrato Alvarez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Industrial Bakery Inc., Jorge E. Castillo, Patricia F. Castillo, Case No. 1:15-cv-20465 (S.D. Fla., February 5, 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 bakery in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM JENNINGS CITY, MO: Illegally Imprisons Class Members, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Jenkins, Edward Brown, Keilee Fant, Byeon Wells, Meldon Moffit, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson Jr., Tonya Deberry, et al. v. The City of Jennings, Case No. 4:15-cv-00252 (E.D. Mo., February 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of all impoverished people who were jailed indefinitely and none was afforded a lawyer or the inquiry into their ability to pay by the City of Jennings because they were unable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffic tickets or other minor offenses. City of Jennings is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 916 G St., NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 681-2409 E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org - and - Brendan D. Roediger, Esq. John J. Ammann, Esq. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 100 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 977-2778 Facsimile: (314) 977-1180 E-mail: broedige@slu.edu ammannjj@slu.edu - and - Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. 7751 Carondelet, Suite 201 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 482-3342 Facsimile: (314) 932-2702 E-mail: tbh1910@gmail.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Must Face Home Care Nurses' Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge on Jan. 23 rejected Kaiser Foundation Hospitals' bid for a quick win in a putative class action alleging the company pressured unionized home care nurses to underreport their hours worked, rejecting Kaiser's argument that the dispute should be handled by the plaintiff's union. Kaiser had argued in a summary judgment motion that home care nurse Antonio Gonzalez cannot bring a putative class action against Kaiser because, under California Labor Code Section 514, the state's statutory overtime requirements do not apply when an employee is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that otherwise delineates wage and hour practices and provides a regularly hourly pay rate more than 30 percent over the state minimum wage. On Jan. 23, Thomas R. Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, representing Kaiser, urged Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr. to reverse his tentative ruling denying the motion. Kaiser argued that Section 514 rendered Mr. Gonzalez's overtime claim as something better addressed in a union grievance, and said that Mr. Gonzalez's claim that he wasn't paid straight time can only be pursued as a claim for breach of the collective bargaining agreement -- a claim Gonzalez didn't bring. "If you have this collective bargaining agreement and your union has bargained in protections that include overtime for every hour worked . . . then your redress is to sue under your collective bargaining agreement," he said. "No one's suggesting that he should have to work without pay or that he's not entitled to redress." Judge Wiley, however, disagreed, noting in his written tentative ruling, and again in court, that although the court must reference the union agreement to determine what Gonzalez should have been paid for any purported off-the-clock work, that does not mean his claims are preempted. "Thank you for your excellent oral argument. I fear I have not convinced counsel that I'm correct, so we're going to have to agree to disagree," the judge said. Mr. Gonzalez filed suit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Permanente and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. in California court in September 2012, alleging Kaiser had a practice of requiring home care nurses to work "off the clock" before and after their shifts. Mr. Gonzalez alleges that when he was employed in Kaiser's hospice and home health palliative care department from January 2007 into 2012, he was regularly required to work more than the hours specified as the official start and end of his shifts, but Kaiser refused to pay him for those hours. Kaiser required Mr. Gonzalez to record his time using a "daily activity record," and Mr. Gonzalez then used that record to complete a paper time sheet that he submitted for payroll processing, according to Judge Shepard's Jan. 23 ruling. According to the ruling, Gonzalez contends that under pressure from his supervisors, he did not record all the hours he worked on the daily records or his time sheets. Mr. Gonzalez sought to represent a class of all nonexempt home health care nurses who were subject to similar labor law violations from August 2008 onward. On Jan. 23, Judge Shepard noted that certifying a class in the case might be "more difficult" than surviving a motion for summary judgment, and asked the parties to set a schedule for class certification proceedings. The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas W. Falvey, J.D. Henderson and Daniel O'Neil-Ortiz of the Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey; and Timothy B. Sottile, Michael F. Baltaxe and Wendy K. Marcus of Sottile Baltaxe APLC. Kaiser is represented by Thomas R. Kaufman and Kathryn A. Visosky -- kvisosky@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. The case is Gonzalez v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals et al., case number BC492725, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. LOVE HONEY: Falsely Marketed Pleasure Gel Products, Action Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Tania Warchol f/k/a Tania Racha, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the general public v. Love Honey, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00238 (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants falsely market an over-the-counter Fifty Shades of Grey Come Alive Pleasure Gel for Her product as having beneficial and aphrodisiac properties to increase pleasure and enhance orgasms, despite that none of the ingredients in the Product, individually or in combination, provide such benefits. Love Honey, Inc. is Delaware Corporation that operates an online shop that sells sex toys and sexy lingerie. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com MEDBOX INC: Founder Comments on Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- P. Vincent Mehdizadeh -- Founder and Majority Shareholder of Medbox, Inc. -- commented on the recent lawsuit commenced in California Central District Court (2:15-cv-00426-BRO-JEM) by a shareholder rights law firm. Based on information provided to Mehdizadeh by his attorney, after a complaint has been filed, the plaintiffs must petition the court and ask that the case be certified as a class action lawsuit. In order to be certified as a class action case, there must be enough plaintiffs to make joinder of individual cases impractical and there must be common issues among the plaintiffs. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provide specific details about when a case qualifies for class action designation. "I just wanted to clarify that one lawsuit was filed and announced on the company's ticker without, to my knowledge, obtaining the company's consent. Thereafter, 8 different Plaintiff's firms, or potentially just referral services, announced that same lawsuit, again without seeking the company's permission in citing the company's ticker symbol, in an effort to further solicit clients. It's a shame that we live in a 'sue first and get clients later' type of world but that is the reality," stated Vincent Mehdizadeh, Founder and Majority Shareholder at Medbox. "I was personally sued in the lawsuit and I can safely say that the allegations contained in the complaint are not accurate. During my tenure with the company I personally witnessed a very supportive shareholder base and I still believe the same holds true to this day. In addition, I will be personally engaging an independent public company accounting firm, on my own, to review prior periods as stated and address GAAP compliance, materiality, and fight this suit vigorously. Although this is not a formal company response on the matter, I needed to set the record straight and now I have." About P. Vincent Mehdizadeh P. Vincent Mehdizadeh founded Medbox's main subsidiary, Medicine Dispensing Systems, in February 2008. He commenced operations for that company in 2010, and in December of 2011 sold that company to what became Medbox, Inc. Mr. Mehdizadeh served as senior consultant from December 2012 until May 10, 2013 for Medbox, Inc. and then transitioned to Chief Operations Officer and Board Chairman for Medbox, Inc. through May of 2014. Mr. Mehdizadeh was responsible for creating the 2 main patents behind the company's technology, helping to assemble the talented management team at Medbox, and also developing the concept behind the business models driving revenue for the company. METROPOLITAN JANITORIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Gomez and Elizabeth Gomez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Metropolitan Janitorial Services, Inc., and Patricia Douglas, Case No. 3:15-cv-50025 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees at least the Illinois mandated minimum wages for all hours worked in a workweek. Metropolitan Janitorial Services, Inc. is an Illinois-based commercial and residential cleaning company. 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 MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Class Action Over 2004-07 High Risk Loans --------------------------------------------------------------- DeadlineDetroit.com, citing Free Press' John Gallagher, reports that newly disclosed e-mails and documents give the clearest evidence yet that high-level banking officials pushed subprime mortgage loans knowing some Detroiters couldn't pay them. And that sparked a foreclosure crisis in Detroit. The new documents were revealed in a potential class action by African-American Detroit homeowners against Morgan Stanley, one of the nation's largest Wall Street investment firms. The lawsuit, Adkins et al vs. Morgan Stanley, alleges the high-risk loans in 2004-07 were racially discriminatory because they "disproportionally impacted" thousands of metro Detroit black borrowers. Lawyers for five Detroit plaintiffs say the internal bank documents show officials encouraged New Century, a now-bankrupt lender, to push the loans and that Morgan Stanley ignored its normal credit standards so it could pool the mortgages as investments for lucrative fees. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. A Morgan Stanley spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit, which was filed in 2012. But in its written responses to the suit, the firm denies backing racially discriminatory predatory loans. Morgan Stanley has already agreed in settlements with U.S. government regulators to pay about $1.5 billion for its role in the larger subprime scandal. MORGAN STANLEY: Judge Set to Rule on Mortgage Loan Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Detroit Free Press reports that U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. has yet to decide whether to certify the case as a class action a suit filed against Morgan Stanley. Expect that sometime in the next several months. The case at a glance. Plaintiffs: Five named Detroit plaintiffs -- Beverly Adkins, Charmaine Williams, Rebecca Pettway, Rubbie McCoy and William Young -- plus Michigan Legal Services. Defendant: Morgan Stanley and several of its affiliates. At issue: Whether Morgan Stanley, one of the nation's leading investment firms, encouraged the proliferation of predatory subprime mortgage loans among African-American residents in Detroit in 2004-07. First key issue: Whether African-American residents in Detroit were "disproportionately impacted" by Morgan Stanley's actions. Second key issue: Whether the case should be certified as a class action involving at least 4,000 African-American homeowners in the Detroit area. Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. Plaintiffs seeking: An injunction barring future such action and undetermined damages. NASDAQ OMX: Sued in Pa. Over Illegal Manipulation of Dividends -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Rabin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. John Doe Market Makers, Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC, and Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00551 (E.D. Pa., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manipulated options in advance of dividend payments on underlying stock and exchange traded funds for their personal benefit to the detriment of all other options investors during the Class Period. Nasdaq OMX PHLX LLC is a Self-Regulatory Organization, which owns and operates the PHLX Exchange, which focuses on options trading, trading more than 3,000 classes of equity options. Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates several securities exchanges. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Robin B. Switzenbaum, Esq. Phyllis M. Parker, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, P A 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net rswitzenbaum@bm.net pparker@bm.net - and - Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq. Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Ave., Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 E-mail: squire@bespc.com eagel@bespc.com NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Class Action Refund Deadline Passes ------------------------------------------------------- News.com.au reports that National Australia Bank customers seeking to reclaim "unfair" exception fees had until Jan. 27 to register. The company managing a series of class actions on behalf of bank customers, Financial Redress, says the deadline for those seeking to reclaim "potentially millions of dollars in unfairly charged exception fees" is Jan. 27. Financial Redress managing director James Middleweek on Jan. 26 said that any NAB customer who believes they have been hit by excessive exception fees in the past should complete the registration process on www.financialredress.com.au by 4:00 p.m. AEDT on Tuesday, Jan. 27, so as not to miss out on possible compensation. NAB exception fees were on average around $30 before the bank reduced or eliminated them altogether in 2010. More than 40,000 NAB customers have so far joined the NAB Class Action, which is part of a wider group of legal actions relating to exception fees launched against eight of the major banks in Australia. The lead case, against ANZ, is awaiting judgment in the Court of Appeal after class action members won a Federal Court case on late fees. "When we launched the registration process for the Class Actions back in May 2010 the response was overwhelming. I commend NAB for its willingness to seek a settlement leading to compensation for its customers. It's high time that the other banks followed suit," Mr. Middleweek said. Financial Redress Pty Ltd specializes in recovering compensation from financial institutions for excessive charges or mis-selling. Financial Redress joined forces with IMF Bentham Limited ("IMF") in 2010, and is now a subsidiary of IMF which is a public company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. IMF provides funding for significant and large-scale litigation, including the Bank Fees Class Actions relating to exception fees. NATURE MADE: Falsely Marketed Ginkgo Biloba Products, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Lisa Gara and Melanie Barber, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated and the general public v. Nature Made Nutritional Products, Inc., and Pharmavite, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv- 00209 (C.D. Cal., February 6, 2015), arises from the Defendants false and misleading advertising campaign that the Nature Made Ginkgo Biloba Products provide a variety of health benefits centered around improving mild memory problems, supporting mental alertness, and supporting healthy brain function. Nutritional Products, Inc. is a California corporation that provides domestic and international product manufacturers with the sales, marketing, and product distribution services. Pharmavite, LLC is a California corporation, the maker of Nature Made vitamins and nutritional supplements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Skye Resendes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com skye@consumersadvocates.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com NEFF & SON: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elio Diaz, Christian Aguilar, Siloe Verduo and Mariano Diaz, each on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Neff & Son, Inc. t/a Chester River Landscaping, and Morton Gibbons-Neff III, Donna P. Gibbons-Neff, and Morton Griffin-Neff IV, Case No. 1:15-cv-00337 (D. Md., February 5, 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 landscaping service company located in Chestertown, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvaro Augusto Llosa, Esq. Roberto N. Allen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC 11002 Veirs Mill Rd, Ste 700 Wheaton, MD 20902 Telephone: (301) 861-0202 Facsimile: (410) 864-8895 E-mail: allosa@robertoallenlaw.com rallen@robertoallenlaw.com NESTLE PURINA: Sued Over Dog Deaths Caused by Toxins in Pet Food ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Lucido, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, a Missouri corporation; and Does 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-00569 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's Beneful dog food product contains substances that are toxic to animals and that have resulted in the serious illness and death of thousands of dogs. Nestle Purina Petcare Company is a Missouri corporation that manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells pet foods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq. Michael F. Ram, Esq. Matt J. Malone, Esq. Susan Brown, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: jbc@rocklawcal.com mram@rocklawcal.com mjm@rocklawcal.com sbrown@rocklawcal.com - and - John Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX, LITIGATION GROUP 201 N Franklin Street, Floor 7 Tampa, FL 33602-5157 Telephone: (813)275-5272 Facsimile: (813)275-9295 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com NEW DOMINION: High Court to Hear Prague Earthquake Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Oklahoma's highest court has decided to hear a lawsuit that alleges two oil companies are liable for injuries a Prague woman suffered during a 2011 earthquake. The lawsuit by Sandra Ladra of Prague is among dozens of lawsuits filed in the past several years that allege oil and gas companies are responsible for earthquakes. Similar lawsuits seeking class- action status have been filed against energy companies in Arkansas and Texas. A Lincoln County judge dismissed Ms. Ladra's case, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided on Dec. 2 to hear her appeal instead of referring it to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, the Tulsa World reported on Jan. 25. An attorney for one of the companies warned that the lawsuit, if successful, would cause energy companies to abandon wastewater disposal wells across the state. "These wells will become economic and legal-liability pariahs," Robert Gum, who represents Tulsa-based oil and gas company New Dominion LLC, told a Lincoln County judge during an October hearing in the case. Spess Oil Co., based in Cleveland, Oklahoma, is also named as a defendant. Gum and attorneys for Spess have denied the companies are responsible for triggering earthquakes. Numerous scientific studies and the U.S. Geological Survey have linked wastewater injection wells to "induced" earthquakes. The wastewater is a mixture of saltwater and toxic chemicals produced by oil and gas operations. Studies published in Science magazine and elsewhere have found the waste pumped deep into faulted zones causes pressure to build up, triggering earthquakes miles away. Oklahoma recorded 567 earthquakes last year of 3.0 magnitude or greater, more than in the previous 30 years combined. The U.S. Geological Survey cited a study by one of its seismologists and other scientists that found the Prague quake was triggered by three wastewater injection wells nearby. Ms. Ladra's lawsuit alleges that New Dominion and Spess operated wastewater disposal wells that triggered the Nov. 5, 2011, earthquake -- a 5.6 magnitude quake that was the largest in state history. NEW JERSEY: Child Welfare System Shows Progress, Judge Says ----------------------------------------------------------- The Warrant Reporter's Emily Cummins, citing NJ Advance Media, reports that New Jersey's child welfare system received its 15th report card in nine years, evaluating its progress and improvement following a 1999 class-action lawsuit that alleged neglect of thousands of foster children. "Federal monitor Judith Meltzer and her team at the Center for the Study of Social Policy, a Washington D.C. think tank, concluded the department met 19 of 43 requirements from January 2014 to June 2014, showed progress in eight areas, and missed the mark on 16 others," it reported. In her 200-page report, Ms. Meltzer said that the Department of Children and Families and its Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly the Division of Youth and Family Services, DYFS), is "light-years" better than it once was. "Although there remain important . . . outcomes still to be achieved, the Department of Children and Families has demonstrated it is a system that is continually trying to improve itself," according to the report submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler in Newark. The release of the report follows the Federal District Court determination by Judge Freda F. Wolfson that a Phillipsburg mom has the right to sue department heads and individual employees of the state Department of Children & Families, its Division of Child Protection and Permanency and the Watchung Police Department. Michelle Mammaro, who was the victim of an assault by her husband in 2011, claims that while delaying her case for months, state child services workers attempted to "manufacture" evidence against her. It took more than a year for a Warren County Family Court judge to rule that Ms. Mammaro was not guilty of child abuse, according to her attorney Ken Rosellini, and during that time, Ms. Mammaro alleges that caseworkers and police violated her parental rights and went "beyond their constitutional bounds." A management conference is scheduled for March, after which, Mr. Rosellini said, he plans to question the state employees under oath. The state Attorney General's Office, representing the state agency, did not immediately respond to request for comment and state Department of Children & Families declined to comment because of the pending litigation. NEW ORLEANS, LA: Settles Landfill Class Action for $8 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Russell, writing for The New Orleans Advocate, reports that the city of New Orleans and the operators of a New Orleans East landfill that opened after Hurricane Katrina and quickly became the region's busiest dump have agreed to pay $8 million to settle a long-running lawsuit with a group of people who actually own the property on which the landfill sits. The settlement agreement -- which was filed in Civil District Court on Jan. 22 -- will make the city the owner of record of the land. It also will absolve the old property owners from any environmental liabilities that might arise from the millions of cubic yards of waste that have been dumped on the site, according to Joel Waltzer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. The suit was filed in November 2007, roughly two years after the hastily permitted Old Gentilly Landfill opened its doors and began taking in as much as 100,000 cubic yards of debris on busy days. The suit's central claim was a startling one: that most of the land under the dumping site -- which the city of New Orleans purported to own -- actually belonged to hundreds of private landowners, who had purchased lots in three residential subdivisions that had been platted, but never built, decades earlier. Many of the landowners were unaware that the city had taken over their land for a dump until Mr. Waltzer, who had been filing suits against the Old Gentilly Landfill on environmental grounds, began investigating. He discovered that about 80 percent of the dump site was in private hands and that the city was still mailing property tax bills to all of the landowners each year. One of them, Doretha Walker, then 77, became the lead plaintiff in Mr. Waltzer's lawsuit. She recalled paying $6,000 in 1981 for four adjoining lots in a subdivision with the optimistic moniker Flowerdale. Ms. Walker paid her modest property tax bill each year, hoping that one day Flowerdale might become a reality or at least that her land might become more valuable. She never actually laid eyes on the property. While neither Flowerdale nor its neighbors, christened Lichentag and Forestlawn, ever got built, the land did become more valuable, after a fashion. After Katrina, the otherwise unremarkable, desolate area off Old Gentilly Road suddenly had immense value as a dumpsite. The operators of the landfill -- the AMID/Metro Partnership, a joint venture between construction company owner Stephen Stumpf and trash hauler Jimmie Woods -- were charging about $3.50 per cubic yard for waste, meaning the site was generating hundreds of thousands of dollars a day on busy days. How much the landfill has taken in since 2005 is unclear, but the figure likely is in the tens of millions of dollars. Under a favorable deal it had with the city, AMID/Metro was allowed to keep 97 percent of the money it generated, while the city, the purported landowner, got the other 3 percent as a "royalty." It's not clear when the city helped itself to the land, but it apparently was decades ago. The post-Katrina Old Gentilly Landfill actually sits atop an older city dump that had been closed in the 1980s. On all the paperwork filed with the state Department of Environmental Quality, the city was listed as the owner. While people who win civil settlements against the city of New Orleans often never get paid, or at best have to settle for partial payment years after the verdict, Mr. Waltzer said a fund already has been set up to pay the plaintiffs in this case. He said a maximum of 25 percent of the $8 million settlement would go to attorneys' fees and costs and the costs of claims administration, with the remainder going to the claimants. The settlement calls for each property owner to receive about $1 per square foot, plus a flat payment per owner, which works out to about $12,000 for the owner of a typical subdivision lot. Mr. Waltzer said that amount "represents a premium price for the land in the area." In a prepared statement, he added: "While hurricane debris had to go somewhere, the landowners here were clearly mistreated. They clearly deserve the premium the settlement provides for their ruined land." The defendants have filed a motion seeking to keep confidential the terms of how the settlement is being funded. The suit is a class action, which means the court must hold a fairness hearing to ensure the settlement is fair to the class. The hearing is set for April 13 before Judge Sidney Cates IV. Ms. Walker said she thinks the sum she'll get for her four lots will be a "decent return on my investment" of $6,000, more than 30 years ago. "I'm very, very pleased," Walker, who's now 84, said in a brief phone interview. "I'm happy we've come to a settlement. I never thought I would be receiving the money before I passed." NEW YORK: Denies Class Member's Rights to Vote, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Rossito-Canty, Diana Sepulveda, Frank Morano, Matthew J. Mari, Erik Pistek, Lawrence Gilder, David Pascarella, Michael Reilly, and for all similarly situated voters of the Eleventh Congressional District in the State of New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, in his official capacity as Governor of The State of New York, Case No. 1:15-cv-00568 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated, who are being denied the right to vote for a Representative in the vacant Eleventh Congressional District of New York. Andrew M. Cuomo is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of New York, serving in an official capacity as Governor of The State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald Castorina Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD CASTORINA, Jr. 1336 Clove Road Staten Island, NY 10301 Telephone: (718) 701-3100 Facsimile: (718) 701-3133 E-mail: roncastorina@gmail.com ON TIME COURIER: Faces "Bucio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Bucio, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. On Time Courier Corp. d/b/a Papa Philly and Food and Asif Mirza, Case No. 1:15-cv-01196 (N.D. Ill., February 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate Papa Philly and Food restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com PALMS GENTLEMENS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Christine Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Palms Gentlemens Club, and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-00898 (C.D. Cal., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Palms Gentlemens Club owns and operates adult entertainment clubs with locations in Anaheim and Santa Ana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Morris Rose, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT STARR 23277 Ventura Blvd Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com PATINELLA'S CHICKEN: "Craig" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Craig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Patinella's Chicken Grill College Parkway, LLC and Shelly Patinella, Case No. 2:15-cv-00072 (M.D. Fla., February 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid tips, an additional equal amount of liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Lee County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA 4223 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Facsimile: (239) 549-3331 E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth W. Mercer and James Hanks, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00346 (S.D. Tex., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that operates a land based drilling rigs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq. BARON BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave, Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75214 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com PEACE FOOD: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Santiago, Gustavo Galindo-Diaz, and Nabor Reyes-Megia, on behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated employee v. Peace Food Cafe, Inc., Peacefood Cafe Too, Inc, and Eric H. Yu, Case No. 1:15-cv-00860 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), seeks to recover minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate 2 Peacefood Cafe restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com PINNACLE RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Danielle McCutcheon and Geoffrey Needham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pinnacle Recovery, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00261 (S.D. Cal., February 7, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair debt collection practice of failing to properly identify the original creditor of the alleged debt and illegally demanding payment of miscellaneous costs despite providing no information as to the origin or basis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com - and - Tara D. Newberry, Esq. 7854 W. Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 608-4232 Facsimile: (702) 946-1830 E-mail: tnewberry@cnlawlv.com - and - 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: josh@westcoastlitigation.com REGENCY ENERGY: Accuses of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Bazini, on behalf of himself and 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-00389 (N.D. Tex., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition of all Regency common units in an unfair price and process. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. Regency Energy Partners LP is Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in Dallas, Texas. It is an independent midstream energy partnership involved in the gathering, processing, marketing, and transportation of natural gas and natural gas liquids. Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC are the limited partners Regency Energy Partners LP Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership with its principle executive offices located in Dallas, TX. It owns and operates a diversified portfolio of energy assets. Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. and Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. are Delaware limited partnerships and the general partners of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. The Plaintiff is represented by: Balon B. Bradley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BALON B. BRADLEY 5473 Blair Road, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (972) 991-1582 Facsimile: (972) 755-0424 E-mail: balon@bbradleylaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com mschreiner@faruqilaw.com REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settles Suit Over Morgan Keegan Funds' Collapse ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Regions Financial Corp has agreed to $125 million of settlements to resolve lawsuits accusing it of mismanaging three Morgan Keegan bond mutual funds that collapsed in 2007 after investing heavily in subprime mortgages and other risky debt. The preliminary settlements call for $110 million of cash to be paid to investors in Morgan Keegan's Short Term Bond, Select Intermediate Bond and Select High Income funds, and $15 million of cash to go directly to the funds, less any legal fees. Papers outlining the settlements, which resolve two class-action lawsuits by the funds' shareholders, were filed on Jan. 22 in the federal court in Memphis, Tennessee, where Morgan Keegan has offices. Regions, a southeast U.S. regional bank, is based in Birmingham, Alabama. The settlements require court approval. Regions sold Morgan Keegan to Raymond James Financial Inc in 2012. Regions had no immediate comment on the settlements. It has said it would indemnify Raymond James for legal matters involving Morgan Keegan, and that its indemnification obligation was valued at $193 million as of Sept. 30, 2014. The settlements follow Regions' agreement in June 2011 to pay $210 million to settle charges by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators that Morgan Keegan fraudulently misled investors about the risks of several funds. These funds included bond funds marketed as conservative investments for older investors, but which nonetheless lost more than half of their value in 2007 as credit conditions worsened. According to Morningstar Inc, the Select Intermediate Bond A fund fell 50.3 percent that year, while the riskier Select High Income A fund tumbled 59.7 percent. The SEC claimed that Morgan Keegan hid the falling value of some funds between January and July 2007, and "recklessly" sold shares at inflated prices. James Kelsoe, a Morgan Keegan portfolio manager, accepted a securities industry ban as part of the SEC settlement. The three mutual funds in the Jan. 22 settlements now carry the Helios name, and are being liquidated, court papers show. Lawyers for the funds' shareholders plan to seek fees of up to 30 percent of the settlement amounts. Shareholders had, in 2011, proposed partial settlements, but the court never ruled on their motion. The case is In re: Regions Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, No. 09-md-02009. SAKUMA BROTHERS: Class Action May Affect Mid-Columbia Farmers ------------------------------------------------------------- Kristi Pihl, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that the Washington Supreme Court will take up a case this spring with potential ramifications for many Mid-Columbia farmers and farmworkers. The court is being asked to decide whether farmers are required to pay farmworkers who earn wages based on how much they pick additional, separate pay for rest breaks. Farmworkers may earn a wage based on how much they pick for a number of crops, such as blueberries, cherries or asparagus. They are guaranteed to earn the state's minimum wage, but skilled, fast harvesters can earn quite a bit more. The argument is coming out of a class-action lawsuit filed by farmworkers Ana Lopez Demetrio and Francisco Eugenio Paz against Sakuma Brothers Farms, a berry farm in Burlington, Wash. The farmworkers and Sakuma Brothers Farms finalized a settlement agreement resolving most of the claims in November. The farmers did not admit any wrongdoing, but did agree to pay $850,000 to settle claims and avoid the time and expense involved with a lengthy lawsuit. However, the workers and the farm did not come to an agreement over claims made by the workers that they should receive extra pay for the 10-minute break they can take every four hours, according to court documents. Seattle attorneys for the workers -- Daniel Ford of Columbia Legal Services and Marc Cote of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie -- said in court documents that pay earned while a worker is working can't be used to compensate them for rest breaks. They also assert that employers should be required to pay workers for rest breaks based on the average hourly earnings from piece work or the minimum wage, whichever is more. Adam Belzberg, a Seattle attorney representing the farmers, argues that the pay for rest breaks already is part of the piece rate calculation. The state Department of Labor and Industries decided against requiring separate and additional pay for rest breaks when developing state rules in 1990. The plaintiffs are asking for a retroactive change, meaning farmers would have to pay additional pay for work breaks to piece rate workers for several of the previous seasons. The Washington Farm Labor Association and Washington State Tree Fruit Association estimate that it could cost tens of millions of dollars. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case at 1:30 p.m. March 17 at Heritage University in Toppenish. In the meantime, the associations have advised growers to make sure they are telling their workers that the piece rate compensation is meant to cover the breaks they take. The industry groups also are raising money to support the cost of writing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of growers who pay piece rate to workers. They have hired Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn & Aylward of Wenatchee and Stokes Lawrence of Yakima. They are asking their members to contribute $1 per piece rate worker to pay for the fund. SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Stone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:15-cv-00237 (S.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of calling consumers' cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system without first obtaining prior express consent of the called party. The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC is Delaware media/newspaper publisher. The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Thomas Martin III, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 6565 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 410 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Telephone: (323) 940-1700 Facsimile: (323) 238-8095 E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com Nick@mblawapc.com SIRIUS XM: Courtroom Setbacks Spur Copyright Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that courtroom setbacks for Sirius XM Radio Inc. helped spawn a fresh wave of copyright lawsuits, with new plaintiffs targeting online music services over older recordings that were once considered beyond the reach of artists' and record companies' royalty demands. But Sirius could still salvage its defenses -- and begin to reverse the plaintiffs' momentum -- if a California appeals court grants the company's pending plea for intervention. In a mandamus petition now before California's Second Appellate District, Sirius' lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers argue that a state court judge in Los Angeles committed "clear error" when she ruled last fall that record companies can claim performance rights to pre-1972 songs under state law. (Musical compositions have been protected under federal copyright for nearly 200 years, but federal copyright law only protects sound recordings made after 1972.) The decision -- in a case brought by Capitol Records, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Warner Music Group and ABKCO Music & Records -- came sandwiched in between similar rulings by federal judges in California and New York considering Sirius' broadcasts of pre-1972 recordings by the rock band The Turtles. "Until now, no court has ever held that ownership of a recording made before 1972 includes the exclusive right to publicly perform, or authorize others to publicly perform, that recording once it has been published," O'Melveny's Daniel Petrocelli -- dpetrocelli@omm.com -- wrote in the Dec. 15 petition. "To the contrary, since the dawn of radio broadcasting in the 1920s, plaintiffs have urged radio stations to freely and widely perform their recordings to promote their sale." Sirius tapped O'Melveny late last year to replace Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel as defense counsel in nationwide litigation over pre-1972 recordings. The switch came after U.S. district judges in Los Angeles and New York ruled against Sirius in lawsuits brought by The Turtles' founding members, concluding that owners of pre-1972 sound recordings have performance rights to their songs outside of federal copyright law. Both judges have since refused to reconsider those decisions; Judge Philip Gutierrez in L.A. declined to allow an immediate appeal, and Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan ruled that she'll consider next whether to certify the New York case as a class action. Emboldened by those decisions, on Jan. 22 Zenbu Magazines LLC, which owns the copyrights to sound recordings like The Flying Burrito Brothers song "Sin City," filed a series of putative class actions in Northern California federal court. The suits seek royalties on pre-1972 songs from streaming music services including Google Play Music and Apple's iTunes Radio. The newly launched cases may serve to underline one of O'Melveny's arguments in the California appellate petition -- namely, a warning that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel opened the floodgates when she sided with the record companies last year. "[Strobel's] ruling imposes huge, immediate costs not only on Sirius XM and its listeners, but on thousands of other nonparties," Sirius asserted. "That includes every AM and FM ('terrestrial') radio station, retail store, restaurant, and bar in California that performs pre-1972 recordings. . . . Similar lawsuits have already been filed against Sirius XM and Pandora Media. And commentators have predicted that lawsuits against terrestrial and Internet radio stations will soon follow." The record companies, of course, are fighting Sirius XM's petition. The companies' lawyers, including Jon Eisenberg -- jeisenberg@horvitzlevy.com -- of Horvitz & Levy and Russell Frackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, argued in a Dec. 26 brief that it would be premature for the appeals court to consider Sirius' arguments. Judge Strobel's ruling, which pertained to jury instructions, "does not require Sirius XM to do or refrain from doing anything," the record labels maintain. And, they argue, an immediate appeal wouldn't save time or money, and would instead lead to "piecemeal appellate litigation." Mr. Petrocelli and other lawyers for Sirius XM had the last word in the briefing. In a Jan. 2 reply brief, they disputed the notion that an immediate appeal would unnecessarily fracture the litigation. "The time for the court to resolve this issue is now," they wrote. SOUTH PALAFOX: 300+ People Join Class Action Over Landfill Odor --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Robinson, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that more than 300 people have joined a civil lawsuit against the owners of a controversial Pensacola landfill. The class-action suit, filed in Nov. 21 against South Palafox Properties, seeks damages for roughly 325 Wedgewood residents who allege they have suffered loss of property use, discomfort and annoyance as a result of odors emanating from the Rolling Hills landfill on 6990 Rolling Hills Road. They are currently awaiting a response from South Palafox Properties legal counsel. Wedgewood residents have complained that emissions from the landfill are causing them respiratory problems and eye irritation, as well as creating lingering, offensive odors. The Florida Department of Health in Escambia County issued an air quality health alert between July and August for the area around the landfill, asserting that hydrogen sulfide levels had reached a minimal level of concern for long-term exposure to humans. The 166-acre construction and debris landfill had its permit revoked by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in late July on allegations of code violations including failure to contain odors, contaminating surface water and accepting unauthorized materials. The landfill has been allowed to continue operating while a state administrative judge reviews the DEP's allegations. South Palafox Properties' legal team has argued the validity of several of the DEP's claims, and well as asserted they are in the process of mitigating others. An attorney representing South Palafox Properties in the civil suit, Eric Pellenbarg -- eric.pellenbarg@phelps.com -- of Tampa- based firm Phelps Dunbar, LLP, said he could not comment on pending litigation. Zakariah Johnson of Jacksonville firm Zakariah Johnson, PLLC, is representing lead plaintiffs Ronnie and Wanda Shakir and roughly 170 other households in the suit. Circuit Judge Michael Jones is presiding over the case, according to court records. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in N.D. Texas Over Rapid Reward Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cory Couch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwest Airlines Co., 3:15-cv-00367 (N.D. Tex., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to award Companion Passes to its customers in accordance with the Rapid Reward Program's Terms and Conditions. Specifically, the Program's terms state that points for Companion Passes will be earned on credit card purchases made during the calendar year, without disclosing that points earned on purchases after the close of the customer's billing cycle in December will actually be applied only towards the next calendar year. Southwest Airlines Co. owns and operates a low-cost air carrier with its corporate headquarters located at Dallas Love Field Airport, 2702 Love Field Drive, Dallas, TX 75235. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LAW FIRM PLLC 404 W. 7th Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 299-5329 Facsimile: (512) 628-3390 E-mail: robert@kleinmanlawfirm.com - and - Reid Elkus, Esq. ELKUS, SISSON & ROSENSTEIN, P.C. 501 South Cherry St., Suite 920 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 567-7981 Facsimile: (303) 431-3753 E-mail: relkus@elkusandsisson.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver CO, 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Inflated Ratings Suits for $1.38BB ------------------------------------------------------------- RJR News reports that ratings agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) has agreed to pay a US$1.38 billion settlement to US regulators over allegations it knowingly inflated its ratings of risky mortgage bonds. The deal with the US Justice Department also resolves 19 other lawsuits. In a statement, McGraw Hill -- the parent company of S&P -- said the settlement contains no findings of violations of law. S&P is the first credit agency fined over financial crisis-era violations. The settlement covers mortgage bond ratings between 2004 and 2007. The bonds, which included sub-prime mortgages, were blamed for the collapse of the US property market and subsequent global financial crisis. STAPLES INC: Faces "McCutcheon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- James McCutcheon, And All Other Similarly Situated Under 29 USC 216(B) v. Staples, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00365 (N.D. Tex., February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Staples, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that owns and operates office supply chain stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP Meadow Park Tower 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 706-0834 Facsimile: (469) 339-0204 E-mail: jsiegel.esq@gmail.com STRATASYS LTD: Sued in D. Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Albert Smelko, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stratasys Ltd., David Reis and Erez Simha, Case No. 0:15-cv-00455 (D. Minn., February 5, 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. Stratasys Ltd. is a foreign corporation that manufactures three- dimensional printers and describes itself as a leading global provider of additive manufacturing solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: Carolyn.Anderson@zimmreed.com Brian.Gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Jack Reise, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: JReise@rgrdlaw.com RRobbins@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 TAAG INDUSTRIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- G.M. Sign, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Taag Industries Corp. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01143 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. Taag Industries Corp. is a manufacturer and distributor of industrial machineries and equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ross Michael Good, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: buslit@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com TACONAZO INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Arturo Flores, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Taconazo, Inc., Inocencio Arceo, and Maria Socorro Arceo, Case No. 1:15-cv-01171 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 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 in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "McFarland" Suit Over Defective Airbags ----------------------------------------------------------------- Janet McFarland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15- cv-00153 (W.D. Pa., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, they violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 TARGET CORP: Judge Allows Data Breach Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a federal judge has given the okay for Target data breach lawsuits to go ahead as a class action. The lawsuits allege Target customers were harmed by a data breach from November 27 to December 15, 2013, that made their personal information vulnerable. Approximately 110 million Target customers may have been affected by the data breach. According to Legal Newsline, Judge Paul A. Magnuson ruled that the class action could go ahead, although some of the claims made against Target were dismissed. The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the class-action lawsuit. Judge Magnuson wrote in the 46-page ruling that the data breach was "one of the largest breaches of payment-card security in United States retail history." The lawsuits were filed by consumers who used either their credit or debit cards at Target during the weeks in question and whose personal information was compromised. One hundred and fourteen plaintiffs have been named in the lawsuit so far, alleging they incurred unauthorized charges, lost access to their accounts, and/or had to pay fees including card- replacement fees and costs associated with credit monitoring because of compromised personal financial information. Lawsuits have also been filed by financial institutions affected by the data breach. In filing a motion to dismiss the consumers' complaints, Target argued that the plaintiffs could not show they were injured. The judge ruled, however, that the plaintiffs alleged injury -- including unlawful charges and inability to pay other bills. Target's arguments "gloss over the actual allegations made and set a too-high standard for Plaintiffs to meet at the motion-to- dismiss stage," the judge wrote, finding that the plaintiffs had made plausible allegations that could be reasonably traced to Target's conduct, which is enough to allow the lawsuit to proceed at this stage. Lawsuits filed against Target allege the company failed to use reasonable security practices. The judge dismissed a claim of breach of contract against Target. Other companies have also faced lawsuits alleging they failed to properly protect consumer information. Home Depot also faces lawsuits concerning a data breach that allegedly exposed its customers' private information. The company also faces allegations that it did not alert consumers to the data breach in a timely manner. The Target lawsuit is In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 14-2522, in US District Court, District of Minnesota. TARGET CORP: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul De La Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Brands, Inc. and Target Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00559 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its Herbal dietary supplement products because they failed to contain the medical herbs represented by the label. The Defendants own and operate a retailing company with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota doing business in the State of Arkansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA 12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com - and - Richard R. Barrett,Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 Facsimile: (866) 430-5459 E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Toll Free: (877) 816-4443 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com - and - Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 250-4764 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 TIME WARNER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Cory Groshek, and all others, similarly situated v. Time Warner Cable Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00157 (E.D. Wis., February 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Specifically by procuring a consumer report for employment purposes without first providing a clear and conspicuous written disclosure, in a document consisting solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. Time Warner Cable Inc. provides cable television, high speed internet and home phone service to consumers with its principal place of business is located at 290 Harbor Drive, Stamford, Connecticut 06902. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Modl, Esq. AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP 2 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 200 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 257-5661 Facsimile: (608) 257-5444 E-mail: mmodl@axley.com - and - Robert J. Gingras, Esq. Heath P. Straka, Esq. GINGRAS, CATES & LUEBKE 8150 Excelsior Drive Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (608) 833-2632 Facsimile: (608) 833- 2874 E-mail: gingras@gcllawyers.com straka@gcllawyers.com TURNBERRY ON THE GREEN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Mirtha Michalski and other similarly situated individuals v. Turnberry on the Green Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20475 (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Turnberry on the Green Condominium Association, Inc. owns and operates a real estate company having its main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com UTZ QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Product Label ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bob McGovern, writing for Boston Herald, reports that two Bay Staters are accusing potato chip giant Utz Quality Foods of mislabeling its products as "all natural," alleging in a complaint that some of them are made from genetically modified ingredients. Matt DiFrancesco and Angela Mizzoni filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Hanover, Pa.-based company earlier this month. The suit claims they and others have suffered financial losses because Utz's "'All Natural' representations are deceptive, false, misleading, and unfair to consumers," according to the complaint. WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Dela Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Case No. 5:15-cv-00557 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its Gingko Biloba and Ginseng Herbal dietary supplement products because they failed to contain the medical herbs represented by the label. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and warehouse stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA 12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com - and - Richard R. Barrett,Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 Facsimile: (866) 430-5459 E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Toll Free: (877) 816-4443 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com - and - Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 250-4764 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 WALGREEN CO: Faces "Dela Torre" Suit Over Product Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul De La Torre and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 5:15-cv- 00556 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its Herbal dietary supplement products because they failed to contain the medical herbs represented by the label. Walgreen Co. is a Chicago corporation that owns and operates a drug retailing chain throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, PA 12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com - and - Richard R. Barrett,Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 380-5018 Facsimile: (866) 430-5459 E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Toll Free: (877) 816-4443 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com - and - Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 250-4764 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 WALGREEN CO: Faces "Hale" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding --------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Chrystal Hale and Kaitlyn Pirtle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., GNC Holdings, Inc., Target Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-01182 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured and sold the Herbal Supplements which failed to contain the ingredients advertised and contained ingredients not disclosed on the packaging. Walgreen Co. is a Chicago corporation that owns and operates a drug retailing chain throughout the United States. GNC Holdings, Inc. is Pennsylvania-based commercial enterprises focused on the retail sale of health and nutrition related products. Target Corporation owns and operates a retailing company with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota doing business in the State of Arkansas. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and warehouse stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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. Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1144 West Lake Street, Suite 400 Oak Park, IL 60301 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com dank@hbsslaw.com toma@hbsslaw.com - and - Jason Zweig, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 752-5455 Facsimile: (917) 210-3980 E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net WEGMANS FOOD: Faces Class Action Over Fresh Bread Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Craig, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reports that Wegmans Food Markets is one of three supermarket chains being sued by several New Jersey shoppers who claim the supposedly fresh bread they bought wasn't truly fresh. At seven Wegmans stores in New Jersey, the lawsuit alleges, the breads advertised as freshly baked include bread pre-baked elsewhere, brought to the stores, frozen, then reheated for sale. The lawsuit was brought in state court in New Jersey, but on Jan. 21 the case against Wegmans moved to a New Jersey federal court since Wegmans is headquartered in Gates. "We have not deceived or misled our customers in any way," Wegmans spokeswoman Jo Natale said in a statement on Jan. 24. The lawsuit is filed as class-action litigation, seeking to represent those who bought the baked bread from a Wegmans in New Jersey after Dec. 14, 2008. The plaintiffs claim the baked bread advertising violates the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Yellowstone Capital, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00854 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically by placing an auto-dialed, pre-recorded telemarketing call to her cellular telephone number without her prior express written consent. Yellowstone Capital, LLC is a New York corporation that provides cash advances to small and mid-size businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Barrett, Esq. John W. Barrett, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: kbarrett@baileyglasser.com jbarrett@,baileyglasser.com jmarshall@bailevglasser.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 125 Summer St., Suite 1030 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508)655-1415 Facsimile: (50S) 319-3077 E-mail: mmccue@massattornevs.net ZERO OTTO: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Camilo Martinez and Zanatiel Flores, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Zero Otto Nove Inc., Trattoria Zero Otto Nove II, LLC, Restaurant Zero Otto Nove III, LLC, Roberto Paciullo, and Tony Dorma, Case No. 1:15-cv-00899 (S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com * Foreign Teachers File Class Action v. Recruitment Firm -------------------------------------------------------- Chris Joyner, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports that Georgia school districts have spent at least $52.5 million in the last five years importing foreign teachers, mostly to teach math, science and special education, but the districts have not hired a single one. Instead they use recruitment firms, which can provide a buffer for school districts who fear running afoul of federal laws governing the H-1B visa system. Yet districts elsewhere have faced investigations and lawsuits over their involvement in visa schemes. Here are several: Prince George's County, Md. In November, the U.S. Department of Labor ordered the county schools to pay $4.2 million in back wages and $1.7 million in penalties for "willful" violation of H-1B rules between 2005 and 2001. The district got into trouble when Filipino teachers said they were charged fees for their visas and were paid less than their American colleagues. Federal law requires employers to bear the fees for an H-1B visa and pay their foreign teachers at least as much as they would an American worker. Louisiana Filipino teachers in parish districts across the state said a Los Angeles-based recruitment firm charged them immigration fees and threatened them with deportation if they did not pay. One parish district agreed to reimburse their teachers for the fees and set aside $400,000 for future settlements. The teachers filed a class action suit against the firm and the school districts. In December 2012, a California jury awarded the teachers $4.5 million and ordered the recruitment firm to pay. Garland, Texas For more than a year, the Garland Independent School District has been embroiled in a scandal involving the importation of Filipino teachers between 2008 and 2013. Several teachers claimed they were required to pay a lawyer thousands in immigration fees for their visa. A district investigation determined the personnel director benefited from the misuse of the visa program by pocketing fees, taking recruiting trips abroad and funneling the immigration work and housing to family members. The district offered refunds totaling more than $500,000 to immigrant teachers. The investigation is ongoing. ********* 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 * * *