/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150225.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 40
Headlines
AECOM GOVERNMENT: Stipulation Dismissing "Swedeen" Case Approved
ALABAMA: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Defiance May Spur Class Action
AMERICAN HOME: 3rd Cir. Upholds Denial of "Venetz" Class Claim
AMERICAN SAVINGS: Net Income Down After Class Action Settlement
ANCESTRY.COM INC: Delaware Judge Rejects Hedge Fund Claims
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Cahill" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hayes" Suit in Ohio Over Alleged Data Breach
APPLE INC: Faces "Neocleous" Action Over iOS 8 Operating System
ASCENA RETAIL: Sued in Pa. Over Misleading Marketing Policies
BARCLAYS PLC: Investors Can Appeal Libor Antitrust Litigation
BASF METALS: Sued in Platinum and Palladium Price Fixing
BOIRON CANADA: Judge Tosses Homeopathic Flu Remedy Class Action
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Wants to Remove Pelvic Mesh Suits to WVa Court
BRICKFIT FITNESS: "Hanna" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BRUNER CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over New Statewide Testing System
CHEEK LAW: $6K in Add'l Counsel Fees Okayed in "Johnson" Suit
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Guatemalan Eco-Damage
CMS ENERGY: SC Nears Opinion in Gas Index Price Reporting Suit
COLLECTO INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, N.Y. Suit Says
CONSUMER DIRECT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
COTY INC: Case Dismissal Bid Remains Under Judicial Consideration
CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DELTA APPAREL: Records Liability Over CPSC Inquiry
DELTA APPAREL: Class Certification Issue in 2013 Case Pending
DELTA APPAREL: Class Certification Issue in 2014 Case Pending
DLORAH INC: Faces "Pouncie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DRAFTKINGS: Faces False Advertising Class Action
E. I. DU PONT: Deal Reached With Insurance Carriers
E. I. DU PONT: Trial in Drinking Water Actions Set for Sept. 2015
EATON CORP: Truck Makers Want Judge to Deny class Certification
EXELIS INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
FAIRWAY GROUP: Magistrate Recommends Denial of Motion to Dismiss
FAIRWAY GROUP: Defending Against Wage and Hour Class Action
FERGUSON, MO: Faces Class Action Over "Grotesque" Jail Conditions
FIRST FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FLORIDA: May Take Eight Months to Show Medicaid Program Progress
FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA INC: Court Stays "Simmons" Class Action
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Over Zofran(R)-Related Injuries
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Sharkey" Suit Over Product Misbranding
GO FRAC: Illegally Terminates Employees, "Williams" Suit Claims
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website Contents
HOME DEPOT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Manopla" Suit Claims
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Settles Another Cash Seizure Suit
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Filed Responsive Pleadings in "Hamilton"
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Dismissal of Providence Case Sought
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Bid to Dismiss "Lanier" Case Pending
JL BARNES: Miami Attorney Adds AAJ as Defendant in Junk Fax Suit
KUBRA DATA: Illegally Collects Surcharges, "Wojcik" Suit Claims
KUMQUAT PROPERTIES: NY County S.C. Ruling in "Astil" Case Upheld
LAKE INC: Faces "Ortiz-Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LAWN BEAUTICIANS: Faces "Begin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LINKEDIN CORP: To Settle Class Action Over Email Invitations
LIONS GATE: Another Former Intern to Join Class Action
LODGE AT KENNEBUNK: Faces Suit Over Violation of Disabilities Act
MAGIC CELLULAR: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Sued Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website
METRO BROKERS: Faces "Echols" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MICHAELS STORES: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
MWI VETERINARY: Faces Suit by Winners Circle Investment Club
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Faces Major Decisions Amid Aaron Hernandez Trial
NAT'L HOCKEY: Antitrust Suit Over MLB Blackouts Can Go Ahead
NEW JERSEY: SC Raises Standards for Sexual Harassment Plaintiffs
NO PLACE: "Rolling" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OCLARO INC: Final Approval of "Westley" Case Settlement
OFFICEMAX NORTH: ND Cal. Judge Awards $200K in Attorneys' Fees
OTTAWA: Sick Mom Class Action Defense Costs Reach $1.3 Million
PDC ENERGY: "Baker" Suit Sent Back to Colorado State Court
PDL BIOPHARMA: Stipulation Dismissing "Feeley" Case Approved
PELOZA CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PERRIGO COMPANY: Eltroxin Cases in Israel in Early Stages
PERRIGO COMPANY: Co-Defendant in Tysabri Product Liability Suits
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Ohio Pension Fund Wants to Lead Class Action
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Sued in New York Over Violations of FDCPA
R.J. REYNOLDS: Wants Retirement Plan Class Action Decertified
RAINERI CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Emily" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RCS CAPITAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ROSINELLA MARKET: Faces "Luperon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RWL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Trentman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SCARSDALE PHYSICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SPRINT CORPORATION: Deal Reached in "Bennett" Suit
SPRINT CORPORATION: Discovery Has Begun in Stockholders' Suit
STRATASYS LTD: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York
SYNGENTA CORP: Class Action Over GMO Corn Continues to Grow
TD AMERITRADE: To Defend Against "Order Routing" Litigation
TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Dismiss Reserve Fund Matters Pending
TIM JUNGBLUT: Retaliated Against Workers Involved in FLSA Suit
TL CANNON: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Wage-and-Hour Suit Appeal
TOWERS WATSON: Settlement Reached to Resolve Teck Employees Case
TOWERS WATSON: TWDE Faces Suit Over Meriter Health Plan
TWENTY-FIRST: Defendants Defend "Wilder" Case Dismissal Bid
TYSON FOODS: Faces "Awad" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UBER TECH: Judge Skeptical on Bid for Quick Pretrial Ruling
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Appeal in Shareholder Lawsuits Ongoing
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: UTC Fire Faces "Robocalls" Class Actions
VIKING RANGE: Court Tosses Fridge Door Defect Class Action
UTAH: Judge Allows DUI Suits to Proceed as Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Stevens" Suit Over Product Misbranding
WEST SIDE RESTAURANT: Obtains Approval of "Porter" Suit Deal
WORLD FOOD: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
XPAT XTREME: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Stafford" Suit Says
Z-LIVE INC: Faces "Dickson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
* Oregon House Approves Class Action Bill
*********
AECOM GOVERNMENT: Stipulation Dismissing "Swedeen" Case Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer signed a stipulation and order on
February 17, 2015, which provides that the case captioned AARON
ROSE, as an individual, TROY SWEDEEN, as an individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AECOM
GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., a Corporation, AEROTEK, INC., a
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. AEROTEK, INC., a
Corporation, Cross-Complainant, v. AECOM GOVERNMENT SERVICES,
INC.; and ROES I through 100, Cross-Defendant. AECOM GOVERNMENT
SERVICES, INC. Cross-Complainant, v. AEROTEK, INC., a Corporation;
and MOES 1 through 100, Cross-Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-05218 CRB,
(N.D. Cal.) and all causes and actions contained in the case,
including cross-complaints and cross-claims, will be dismissed
with prejudice as to all parties, including as to Plaintiffs'
individual claims, but without prejudice as to the putative class
members' claims, with each party to bear its own costs and fees
incurred in this action.
The Plaintiffs have determined that it is not feasible to pursue
the class claims, and have entered into an individual settlement.
Pursuant to the confidential settlement agreements and releases by
and between Plaintiffs Aaron Rose and Troy Swedeen and Defendant
AECOM, and the global settlement between AECOM, Plaintiffs, and
Defendant Aerotek at a settlement conference, and Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Parties agreed that the action will be dismissed in its entirety,
with prejudice.
A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/T6m0jHfrom Leagle.com.
Michael S. Morrison -- mmorrison@akgllp.com -- Brett C. Beeler --
bbeeler@akgllp.com -- ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP, Santa Monica,
California, Scott J. Bloch -- scott@scottblochlaw.com -- LAW
OFFICES OF SCOTT J. BLOCH, PA., Washington, DC, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs, AARON ROSE and TROY SWEDEEN.
Heather Havette -- hhavette@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP,
Atlanta, Georgia, Michele H. Gehrke -- mgehrke@seyfarth.com --
Matthew J. Mason -- mmason@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, San
Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant, AECOM GOVERNMENT
SERVICES, INC.
Michael S. Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- Ted A. Gehring --
tgehring@ebglaw.com -- EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C., Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Defendant, AEROTEK, INC.
Michael S. Kun, Ted A. Gehring, EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.,
Attorneys for Defendant, AECOM GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC.
ALABAMA: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Defiance May Spur Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Richey, writing for The Christian Science Monitor, reports
that probate judges across Alabama refused to issue marriage
licenses on Feb. 9 in the face of a federal court ruling last
month declaring the state's ban on same-sex marriages
unconstitutional. The ruling took effect on Feb. 9.
Less than a quarter of the county probate judges were reported to
be complying with the federal judge's ruling, while the rest
declined to issue licenses or kept their offices closed.
While some judges were complying and same-sex marriages were being
performed in Alabama, the vast majority of probate judges were not
participating. Fifty-three of the state's 67 probate judges were
not issuing marriage licenses, according to the gay rights group
Human Rights Campaign.
The open defiance came one day after Roy Moore, chief justice of
the Alabama Supreme Court, ordered probate judges to continue to
enforce the Alabama marriage restrictions despite the federal
judge's ruling that they were invalid.
The escalating state-federal standoff has many observers drawing
comparisons to Alabama's resistance to the civil rights movement.
It is a clash that pits state officials seeking to enforce state
sovereignty against a federal judiciary seeking to impose national
authority.
The defiant stance came after the US Supreme Court announced on
Feb. 9 that it would not issue a stay to block the federal judge's
ruling. The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals also
refused to block the ruling.
In late January, US District Judge Callie Granade ruled for two
same-sex couples challenging an Alabama constitutional amendment
and statute defining marriage as a "unique relationship between a
man and a woman." The restriction violated the rights of same-sex
couples under the US Constitution, the judge declared.
Chief Justice Moore took issue with the ruling, saying that
neither the US Supreme Court nor the Supreme Court of Alabama had
ruled on the constitutionality of the state's marriage laws. He
said probate judges in Alabama were not bound by the federal
judge's orders because the lawsuit was filed against Alabama
Attorney General Luther Strange, who has no authority over the
state judiciary. Instead, Chief Justice Moore said, probate
judges fall under the direct authority of the chief justice as the
administrative head of the state judiciary. He said since Judge
Granade did not direct any judges to take specific actions, her
decisions were merely "persuasive authority."
The chief justice then urged Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) to
take action against any probate judges who follow the federal
court's order.
For his part, Governor Bentley said he disagreed with the Supreme
Court's decision not to issue a stay. He said litigation and
appeals over the same-sex marriage issue had created confusion and
conflicting instructions for state judges. But he declined to
threaten any judges with sanctions if they complied with the
federal ruling.
"Probate judges have a unique responsibility in our state, and I
support them," he said in a statement. "I will not take any
action against probate judges, which would only serve to further
complicate this issue."
Attorney General Strange said he, too, regretted the Supreme
Court's action in declining to issue a stay. "In the absence of a
stay, there will likely be more confusion in the coming months,"
he said.
Mr. Strange noted that his office does not issue marriage
licenses, and he advised probate judges to consult their lawyers
and associations about how to properly respond to the federal
ruling.
Meanwhile, attorneys for the same-sex couples filed a motion
asking Judge Granade to declare Don Davis, the probate judge in
Mobile County, to be in contempt of court. They sought
unspecified sanctions against Judge Davis for failing to comply
with Judge Granade's ruling.
According to the motion, Davis had failed to open the marriage
license office on Feb. 9. "The Honorable Don Davis has not given
a reason why the marriage license division is closed on this
particular day, and he has not stated as to when the office will
reopen," the motion said in part.
The lawyers also asked Judge Granade to order law enforcement
officials to open the marriage license office.
Later on Feb. 9, Judge Granade denied the motion, saying that the
plaintiffs had failed to show that Davis was not complying with
the court's order.
"Probate Judge Don Davis is not a party in this case and [the
ruling] did not directly order Davis to do anything," Judge
Granade said in a three-page order.
But the judge also issued a warning to Davis and any other probate
judges who decline to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
You could be sued, she said.
"Actions against Judge Davis or others who fail to follow the
Constitution could be initiated by persons who are harmed by their
failure to follow the law," Judge Granade said.
Defiance of the federal decision could prompt a class-action
lawsuit drawing injunctions and the awarding of legal costs and
attorney's fees, the judge noted.
The judge's order essentially instructs same-sex couples and their
lawyers to file suit against any state officials who try to impede
their attempt to obtain a marriage license. The order strongly
suggests that the judge will respond favorably to any plaintiffs
in such cases.
On another front, the National Organization for Marriage, which
supports the traditional definition of marriage, issued a
statement calling on the people of Alabama to "continue to enforce
their state marriage laws."
NOM president Brian Brown said the constitutional amendment in
Alabama passed in 2006 with the support of 81 percent of voters.
"A single federal judge does not have the authority to overturn a
state marriage amendment and the people of Alabama should refuse
to go along with this order," Mr. Brown said.
Brown said he supported Moore's approach. "These probate judges
have sworn an oath to the people of Alabama and they must honor
their oath to the people they serve," he said.
AMERICAN HOME: 3rd Cir. Upholds Denial of "Venetz" Class Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick and Nancy Venetz appealed from the District Court's order
denying their claim for benefits under the Diet Drug Nationwide
Class Action Settlement Agreement in IN RE DIET DRUGS
(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION.
Venetz's appeal arose from the multi-district class action
litigation regarding the diet drugs Pondimin(R) (fenfluramine) and
Redux(R) (dexfenfluramine), previously sold by American Home
Products (AHP). AHP settled the litigation, placed funds in a
trust for claim payments, and established a Settlement Trust to
review and administer benefit claims by Pondimin and Redux users
who suffer from "severe heart-valve regurgitation" or other "less
severe heart-valve conditions that progress to the more serious
levels" during the 15-year period following execution of the
Settlement Agreement.
In a Feb. 10, 2015 Opinion available at http://is.gd/uBPSwDfrom
Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the lower court's claim denial ruling for Venetz.
The Third Circuit holds that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in holding that Venetz failed to meet his burden of
proving that there was a reasonable medical basis for his
attesting physician's finding of moderate mitral regurgitation.
AMERICAN SAVINGS: Net Income Down After Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Segal, writing for Star Advertiser, reports that American
Savings Bank is taking care of old business and preparing for the
future as it looks forward to becoming a stand-alone financial
institution for the first time in 27 years.
The state's third-largest bank said Friday that net income slipped
1.4 percent to $12 million in the fourth quarter after settling a
3-year-old class-action lawsuit for $2 million related to
overdraft fees on debit card transactions, and spending about
$600,000 associated with its decision to build new headquarters in
Chinatown within the next two years.
ANCESTRY.COM INC: Delaware Judge Rejects Hedge Fund Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that a Delaware judge ruled
on Jan. 30 that a private equity firm paid a fair value of $32 per
share to acquire Ancestry.com Inc. and rejected hedge fund claims
the price should have been as high as $47 per share.
The ruling is a setback for an increasingly popular hedge fund
strategy called "appraisal arbitrage," in which investors vote
against a proposed deal and then ask a judge to determine the fair
value of the stock after a trial.
The online family research company was sold to European private
equity firm Permira Advisors in 2012. The private equity firm
paid 40 percent above the market price for the stock, according to
the 56-page opinion from Sam Glasscock, a judge on Delaware's
Court of Chancery.
After the deal closed, Merion Capital, Merlin Partners and Ancora
Merger Arbitrage Fund exercised appraisal rights and sought a
better price for their 1.4 million shares. Their expert argued
for $42.81 per share to $47 per share, according to the ruling.
Ancestry.com's expert put the fair price at $30.63 per share,
below what Permira was willing to pay.
Merion, founded by securities class action lawyer Andrew Barroway,
has been a leader in bringing appraisal arbitrage cases, which can
take years.
Unlike in shareholder class actions, Merion does not have to prove
any wrongdoing by the company's board of directors, just that the
fair price was higher than the deal price. While the investors
failed to increase the price, the judge also declined to find fair
value below the deal price. The funds will also collect interest,
limiting their potential for losing money on the deal.
The strategy has produced big returns. In 2012, Orchard
Enterprises Inc. was ordered to pay Merlin Partners and others
$4.67 per share for their stake in the company, more than twice
the $2.05 per share merger price.
Ancestry.com and attorneys for the investors did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Cahill" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cahill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00214 (S.D. Ind.,
February 12, 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.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George "Jay" Hoffrnan III, Esq.
HOFFMAN & NEWCOMB
250 East Jefferson Street
Franklin, IN 46131
Telephone: (317) 736-1982
Facsimile: (317) 736-6979
E-mail: george.hoffman@harnlawfirm.com
- and -
William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
SWEETNAM LLC
100 North La Salle Street, Suite 1010
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 7s7-1888
Facsimile: (312) 7s4-8090
E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com
- and -
Lany D. Drury, Esq.
LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
100 North La Salle Street, Suite 1010
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 346-7950
Facsimile: (312) 346-5777
E-mail: ldrurylaw@aol.com
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hayes" Suit in Ohio Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra E. Hayes and Dale Alexander, On Behalf of Themselves and
Those Similarly Situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00284 (N.D. Ohio, February 12, 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.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis R. Lansdowne,Esq.
Daniel Frech, Esq.
SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER
Ste. 1700, 1001 Lakeside Avenue, E
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 696-3232
Facsimile: 696-3924
E-mail: dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
dfrech@spanglaw.com
APPLE INC: Faces "Neocleous" Action Over iOS 8 Operating System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that two individuals filed a class action
lawsuit against Apple on Feb. 3 over allegations of unfair
competition, false advertising and unjust enrichment based on
product claims.
Steven Neocleous, of Flushing, N.Y, and Shaefer Wiese, of
Minneapolis, alleged in the suit that Apple misrepresented the
storage capacity on its 8 and 16 gigabyte products.
Specifically, Messrs. Neocleous and Wiese alleged that the iOS 8
operating system uses a larger percentage of storage than expected
because up to 23 percent of an Apple device's capacity may be
inaccessible due to mandatory preinstalled software. They also
alleged that Apple knowingly omits this information and that
consumers are confused by the language contained in accompanying
product information.
The suit seeks an order requiring corrective disclosure by Apple,
restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiffs are represented by Michael McShane and Jonas Mann of
Audet & Partners, LLP in San Francisco; Clayton Halunen --
halunen@halunenlaw.com -- and Melissa Wolchansky --
wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- of Halunen & Associates in
Minneapolis; Charles Laduca, Matthew Miller and William Anderson
of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP in Washington, D.C.; Robert
Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP in Minneapolis; and Jon Herskowitz of Baron & Herskowitz in
Miami.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
No. 5:15-cv-00501
ASCENA RETAIL: Sued in Pa. Over Misleading Marketing Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Mehigan, Fonda Kubiak, Esq., and others similarly situated
v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. d/b/a Justice Stores and Tween
Brands, Inc. d/b/a Justice Stores, Case No. 2:15-cv-00724 (E.D.
Pa., February 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' unlawful
practice of advertising significant discounts on products which
never ended and continued, week in and out, that didn't actually
provide discount to their customers.
The Defendants own and operate over 900 Justices stores across the
United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin E. Raphael, Esq.
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP
1818 Market St, Ste 3402
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 320-6200
E-mail: ker@pietragallo.com
- and -
Anthony Coyne, Esq.
Brendon P. Friensen, Esq.
MANSOUR GAVIN, PA
1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 1400
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 523-1500
E-mail: acoyne@mggmlpa.com
bfriesen@mggmlpa.com
BARCLAYS PLC: Investors Can Appeal Libor Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
less than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court reignited sprawling
antitrust litigation accusing major banks of conspiring to fix the
London Interbank Offered Rate, the stage is quickly being set for
the next big Libor battle at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald agreed to allow appeals
by several groups in the consolidated Libor case who are
contesting her 2013 decision dismissing the antitrust claims at
the heart of the litigation. Those plaintiffs had argued that
they shouldn't be sidelined after the Supreme Court held Jan. 21
that a smaller group of bond purchaser plaintiffs could appeal
Buchwald's 2013 ruling.
Thanks to Buchwald's Feb. 5 order, the bondholders' lawyers at
Morris and Morris and Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher may have plenty
of company as they try to revive their antitrust claims. The
groups now cleared to pursue an appeal include over-the-counter
investors -- pension funds and others that directly purchased
Libor-linked financial products -- and also investors that traded
certain futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Susman
Godfrey's William Carmody represents both the OTC and exchange
plaintiffs.
A parallel appeal by units of Charles Schwab Corp., on the other
hand, is now stuck in procedural limbo. Like the bond purchasers,
the Schwab plaintiffs brought only federal antitrust claims
against the banks, and their initial effort to appeal Buchwald's
2013 ruling tossing the antitrust claims was rebuffed by the
Second Circuit on procedural grounds.
Last month, pointing to the recent Supreme Court decision, Schwab
asked the Second Circuit to reinstate the earlier appeal. The
appeals court rejected that request on Feb. 10, but Lieff
Cabraser's Steven Fineman, who represents the Schwab plaintiffs,
said he's confident his clients won't remain shut out as the
appeal progresses. After the Second Circuit declined to reinstate
the earlier appeal, Lieff Cabraser filed another notice of appeal,
which is pending.
In any event, Mr. Fineman told The Litigation Daily, the Second
Circuit will eventually decide whether there's a solid antitrust
claim, a ruling that will bind all the cases in the consolidated
litigation.
Meanwhile, the Libor plaintiffs may have gotten a boost in their
appeal last month by a Manhattan judge presiding over an unrelated
antitrust case alleging manipulation in the foreign exchange
market. U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield refused to dismiss
antitrust claims against a dozen major banks, drawing a clear
distinction with Judge Buchwald's 2013 ruling in the Libor case.
As Reuters columnist Alison Frankel explained, Schofield's ruling
could offer a blueprint for the plaintiffs in the Libor appeal.
Davis Polk & Wardwell's Robert Wise -- robert.wise@davispolk.com
-- who represents Bank of America Corp. in the Libor suit, serves
as liaison counsel for the defendants. The defendants also
include Barclays PLC and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC,
among others.
BASF METALS: Sued in Platinum and Palladium Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------
Larry Hollin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs International, HSBC
Bank USA, N.A., and Standard Bank PLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01036
(S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendants are
engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to manipulate and rig the global
benchmarks for physical platinum and palladium prices, as well as
the prices of platinum- and palladium-based financial derivative
products.
BASF Metals Limited is a company based in London, United Kingdom
that trades precious metals.
Goldman Sachs International is a financial services company and a
subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., with its principal
place of business in London, England.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is a banking and financial services company
which maintains its principal place of business in Mclean,
Virginia.
Standard Bank PLC is a banking and financial services company
which maintains its principal place of business in London,
England.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2200
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
- and -
Paul Scarlato, Esq.
Mark Goldman, Esq.
GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
101 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 204
Wayne, PA 19087
Telephone: (484) 342-0700
Facsimile: (484) 580-8729
E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com
goldman@lawgsp.com
- and -
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KAN
526 Superior Avenue, Suite 1255
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 589-9280
Facsimile: (888)411-0038
E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com
BOIRON CANADA: Judge Tosses Homeopathic Flu Remedy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emira Tufo -- etufo@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP
reports that in Adanna Charles v. Boiron Canada (Boiron), the
Quebec Superior Court recently rendered a judgement refusing to
authorize (certify) a class action and to name as representative
plaintiff a petitioner whom it deemed to be less than adequate and
lawyer-driven. The decision tempers the liberal approach to
authorization in Quebec, and clearly articulates a set of criteria
for assessing the adequacy of a proposed class representative.
The ruling is also of interest for companies involved in the
retail of regulated products, as it suggests that goods having
been approved for sale by public authorities -- a health product
in this case -- should not be subjected to legal action grounded
in largely unsubstantiated allegations of misrepresentation.
Factual Background
In Boiron, the Petitioner had purchased a homeopathic flu remedy,
which she had administered to herself and to her child to no
apparent effect. Some months later, she brought a motion to
institute a class action. Among other things, she alleged that the
medication in question, Oscillococcinum or "Oscillo", had been
falsely advertised as a "cure" for the flu and as containing an
active ingredient (duck heart and liver) which it did not, in
fact, contain. The Petitioner had been spurred into action after
coming across information on the internet concerning a similar
U.S. claim.
The Ruling
While recalling the relatively liberal criteria to be applied at
the authorization stage of a class action, the Court concluded
that the Petitioner had not demonstrated an arguable case (para.
1003 (b) C.C.P.), and was, moreover, not in a position to
represent the members adequately (para. 1003 (d) C.C.P.). She had
thus failed to meet two of the four requirements necessary to
bring a class action in Quebec.
Failure to Demonstrate an Arguable Case
Apart from noting clear differences in Oscillo's American and
Canadian labels, the former having been submitted as exhibits in
support of the Petitioner's claim, and the latter promising
neither duck nor cure, the Court also dismissed three magazine
articles submitted by the Petitioner, clearly stating its
reluctance to find an arguable case that Oscillo had had no effect
on the symptoms of the flu, when the product had already met the
requirements of Health Canada and had been approved for sale to
this end. The Court then carefully scrutinized the expert opinion
submitted by the Petitioner, which acknowledged that Oscillo
delivered a slightly better result than a placebo, but only from
the perspective of statistical significance (which, according to
the expert, was not clinically meaningful). As the Court
observed, however, a statistically significant difference had been
deemed sufficient for product-approval by Health Canada, which it
was not appropriate for the Court to revisit.
An (in)Adequate Representative
The Court did not take kindly to the Petitioner's apparent lack of
initiative in the case. Noting that she had done no more than
mention her disappointment with Oscillo to her mother and a friend
who had then encouraged her to contact her lawyer, the Court found
that the Petitioner was simply not an "adequate" class
representative. While she had also allegedly spoken to a handful
of friends, none of them had actually taken the medication. The
Petitioner had not retained the packaging or receipt of her
purchase, had made no effort to contact Biron Canada to inquire or
complain, and had not reached out to any prospective class members
prior to contacting class counsel. She had never spoken to the
expert in the file and had only "briefly" reviewed his report. In
the Court's view, the action was clearly driven by Plaintiff's
counsel who was attempting to capitalize on a settlement that had
been achieved against Biron U.S.A. on the basis of quite different
commercial representations.
Summarizing its analysis of the Petitioner's competence, the Court
concluded that "for the word "adequately" of article 1003 d) CCP
to have any meaning, the proposed group representative [had] to be
more than a "figurant," whose essential feature [was] to have met
the bare minimum condition to be a member of the proposed group;
such representative [had] to show the Court that, through some
steps, albeit small ones. He or she distinguishe[d] himself or
herself from a group member, through enquiries or initiatives
which illustrate[d] his or her interest to play the role of
representative."
Takeaway
A prospective class representative is not often found to be
inadequate, provided certain minimum criteria of competence and
awareness are met. Class actions are, not infrequently,
encouraged by vigilant lawyers. The ruling in Boiron pushes back
against this trend, issuing a criticism against Quebec class
action counsel attempting to ride in on the coat-tails of American
settlements. The Court in Boiron was equally critical of the fact
that the Petitioner herself had only thought to bring her action
once coming across U.S. proceedings at least six months after she
herself had consumed the product. "Small steps" must be
meaningful, a petitioner is more than a mere group member, and a
lawyer cannot be the animating spirit of a class action.
Moreover, when a product has passed regulatory scrutiny for what
it promises to deliver, those promises cannot easily be found to
have been false.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Wants to Remove Pelvic Mesh Suits to WVa Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Boston Scientific Corp., a defendant in the Philadelphia pelvic-
mesh mass tort, is seeking to remove cases from the city's Complex
Litigation Center to federal court in West Virginia.
According to a notice of removal filed by defendant Boston
Scientific in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, the allegations against Boston Scientific in
Philadelphia court are similar to thousands of cases against it
across the country, warranting an MDL.
"There are currently more than 15,000 cases pending against BSC"
in federal court, according to the notice.
In Philadelphia, there are approximately 700 pelvic mesh cases in
the mass tort program. As of press time, Complex Litigation
Center Director Stanley Thompson said there had been no indication
as to whether the cases would be transferred.
However, if the litigation does move to federal court,
Mr. Thompson said the mass tort in Philadelphia would remain open
in the event that the cases are sent back.
Explaining how these cases met the $75,000 damages minimum to
qualify for federal court, Boston Scientific pointed to pelvic
mesh cases against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc. in
which plaintiffs recovered in excess of the minimum, as well as
cases against Boston Scientific in its proposed jurisdiction of
West Virginia.
"There are thousands of similar cases pending in the MDL in the
Southern District of West Virginia in which plaintiffs have met
the minimum amount-in-controversy such that a federal court can
exercise diversity jurisdiction over those cases," the notice
said.
Boston Scientific's attorneys, Joseph Blum and Joanna Vassallo of
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, did not return calls seeking comment.
Lee Balefsky -- Lee.Balefsky@KlineSpecter.com -- of Kline &
Specter, liaison counsel to the plaintiffs in the litigation, said
in an email to The Legal, "Given the multimillion-dollar verdicts
that juries have reached against Boston Scientific in mesh cases,
we agree that these cases are worth far in excess of $75,000."
Boston Scientific's attempt to transfer the cases comes six months
after Secant Medical, the sole Pennsylvania-based defendant in the
pelvic-mesh mass tort, was dismissed from the litigation.
In August, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold L. New
found that Secant was immune from liability as a biomaterials
supplier under the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998.
While the act protects suppliers of biomaterials from civil
liability, it does not protect manufacturers of biomaterial-based
devices. The plaintiffs in the litigation argued that Secant fit
the definition of a manufacturer of mesh products.
Judge New's ruling left Ethicon and Boston Scientific as the
remaining primary defendants in the mesh cases.
Prior to the dismissal of Secant, pelvic mesh filings were on the
rise. In August, there were 859 total filings, according to court
records. The mass tort saw the largest influx of cases in June,
with 375 filings. In July, 192 cases were filed.
Now, the mesh litigation is the third largest mass tort behind
Reglan, with 2,293 case filings, and Risperdal -- with its first
trial in Philadelphia under way -- consisting of 1,278 filings.
The plaintiffs in the Reglan litigation claim that the drug,
prescribed to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease, caused them
to develop an incurable neurological disorder called tardive
dyskinesia.
Risperdal is an antipsychotic drug that several plaintiffs have
claimed causes gynecomastia, a condition in which males grow
breasts. The drug is also alleged to increase the risk of
pituitary tumors.
Pelvic or transvaginal mesh is intended to treat urinary
incontinence in women by supporting prolapsed organs. The
plaintiffs allege that the mesh erodes prematurely, causing
injuries including severe pain, sexual dysfunction and
gynecological problems.
"This stacks up as a very significant litigation. There have been
a number of verdicts for plaintiffs in bellwether trials, and each
of the verdicts has been a seven-figure jury verdict," Kline &
Specter co-founder Thomas Kline -- Tom.Kline@KlineSpecter.com --
said at the outset of the litigation. "These cases are very
significant cases involving injuries which are readily
understandable, by women in particular, who can certainly
appreciate the horrors that the mesh has caused to thousands."
BRICKFIT FITNESS: "Hanna" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Hanna, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Brickfit Fitness & Wellness, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, and Joseph Horgan, Case No. 0:15-cv-60292 (S.D. Fla.,
February 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a fitness and wellness center in
Davie, Broward County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Daryl Lieberman, Esq.
SCOTT LIEBERMAN, P.A.
7390 NW 5th Street, Suite 10
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 625-2123
Facsimile: (954) 791-4480
E-mail: lieberman@liebermanaa.com
BRUNER CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Waid, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Bruner Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00607
(S.D. Ohio, February 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Bruner Corporation is a mechanical contractor providing innovative
solutions for construction in Central Ohio.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Keith Hymore, Esq.
MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., LPA
3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 255-5888
Facsimile: (216) 397-5845
E-mail: rkhymore@bmanganolaw.com
- and -
Basil W. Mangano, Esq.
Joseph J. Guarino, Esq.
2245 Warrensville Center Road, Suite 213
Cleveland, OH 44118
Telephone: (216) 397-5844
Facsimile: (216) 397-5845
E-mail: bmangano@bmanganolaw.com
jguarino@bmanganolaw.com
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over New Statewide Testing System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wilde, writing for Breitbart, reports that a rather
expensive development has surfaced on the way to installing Common
Core in California's hundreds of school districts statewide.
Officials have figured out that the big government initiative
could collectively cost districts $1 billion every year to set up
a new statewide testing system supporting the new curriculum.
The question is, who's going to pay for it? According to the
Santa Ana School District, the state, not the district, should
foot the bill. Santa Ana along with three other school districts
submitted a class action complaint, demanding that California pay
for the "next generation" Smarter Balanced Assessments based on
national Common Core standards.
The Orange County Register reported that the Santa Ana Unified
school district, which consists of 57,000 students, projects $12
million in district costs pertaining to the Common Core tests,
which includes $8.1 million for devices, $3.3 million for
bandwidth and infrastructure, plus other significant outlays for
accessories and training.
Gov. Jerry Brown appointee, H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for
California's Department of Finance, so far has not responded to
the claim because it is still being reviewed, the Register
reported.
Smarter Balanced testing jettisons paper and pencils used in
previous testing and requires computers for grades three through
eight and also 11. Santa Ana Unified's superintendant, Rick
Miller, characterized the new development by saying, "This
computer thing is a whole different deal than the No. 2 pencil
. . . You have to reimburse the mandate based on that."
Josh Daniels, a staff attorney for the California School Boards
Association, contends that California has a constitutional mandate
to satisfy its financial obligations to the districts. "It's
going to be quite expensive . . . We foresee this as being a
significant impact on districts going forward."
In 2013, California coughed up a whopping $1.25 billion to
districts to facilitate Common Core training, instructional
materials, and computers. Moreover, last year they gave an
additional $26.7 million for high-speed internet. This year $100
million was allocated to school districts for internet needs.
Mr. Daniels asserted that's not going to be enough to satisfy
Common Core requirements.
CHEEK LAW: $6K in Add'l Counsel Fees Okayed in "Johnson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit LAJUANNA I. JOHNSON, et al. v. CHEEK LAW OFFICES,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-1130 (S.D. Ohio), District Judge
Algenon L. Marbley awarded plaintiffs $6,090 in supplemental
attorney fees in a Feb. 10, 2015 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/hmWSoVfrom Leagle.com.
The additional $6,090.00 in attorney fees is for the period of
October 15, 2013 through May 23, 2014. Plaintiffs proposed to
award $2,345 for Daniel R. Freytag's work (6.70 hours at an hourly
billing rate of $350/hr) and $3,745.00 for Edward A. Icove's work
(10.70 hours at an hourly billing rate of $350/hr). Of the total
$6,090.00 award requested, $875.00 is sought for a total of 2.5
hours of work related to the recovery of attorney fees.
The class action was filed by the Plaintiffs based on Defendants
previous action in suing Plaintiffs in Franklin County, Ohio, to
recover debts secured by promissory notes. The parties have since
sought and obtained Court approval of a class settlement to
resolve their dispute.
Lajuanna I. Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Robert
Freytag & Edward Alan Icove, Icove Legal Group Ltd.
Dustin M. Helton, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Robert Freytag
& Edward Alan Icove, Icove Legal Group Ltd.
Michael V. Flack, II, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Robert
Freytag & Edward Alan Icove, Icove Legal Group Ltd.
Cheek Law Offices, LLC, Defendant, represented by Boyd W Gentry,
Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry.
Emerson Cheek, III, Defendant, represented by Boyd W Gentry, Law
Office of Boyd W. Gentry.
Jackson T. Moyer, Defendant, represented by Boyd W Gentry, Law
Office of Boyd W. Gentry.
Parri J. Hockenberry, Defendant, represented by Boyd W Gentry, Law
Office of Boyd W. Gentry.
Aaron J. Wilson, Defendant, represented by Boyd W Gentry, Law
Office of Boyd W. Gentry.
Nicholas J. Cheek, Defendant, represented by Boyd W Gentry, Law
Office of Boyd W. Gentry.
First Resolution Investment Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Boyd W Gentry, Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry.
Ohio Receivables, LLC, Defendant, represented by Boyd W Gentry,
Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry.
John Soliday Financial Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Boyd
W Gentry, Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry.
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Guatemalan Eco-Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that Chiquita Brands
Inc. was hit with a proposed consumer class action in California
federal court on Feb. 9 alleging its buys nearly all of its
bananas from a supplier that contaminates drinking water despite
claiming that it requires ecologically friendly farming practices.
The suit says Chiquita buys hundreds of millions of pounds of
bananas from Guatemalan company Cobigua, representing about 95
percent of its banana sales, and that Cobigua's use of fertilizers
and pesticides contaminates water supplies, destroys crops and
poisons local residents.
Plaintiff Justin Jablonowski says he stopped buying Dole Food Co.
Inc. bananas last year after learning about their practices and
switched to Chiquita in part because it claimed to follow high
environmental standards. But Chiquita failed to disclose Cobigua's
methods, including operating dump sites next to open water
sources.
"We strongly believe that Chiquita knew about these harmful
practices that have been so damaging to local ecosystems," Steve
W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, representing
Mr. Jablonowski, said in a statement. "No company should be able
to get away with such a blatant disregard for the environment and
community in which it operates, especially when a company profits
so heavily by misleading consumers, as we allege Chiquita has
done."
The suit cites research done by Seattle nonprofit Water &
Sanitation Health Inc., which sued Chiquita last year in
Washington federal court over similar allegations. The group
settled after several of its claims were dismissed, cutting
potential damages down to $75,000, according to a Chiquita filing
in the case.
The Feb. 9 complaint accuses Cobigua of mixing fertilizer into its
irrigation system at least every three weeks and spraying fields
with toxic chemicals once a week. The local drinking water has 10
times the recommended levels of nitrates and heavy metals, which
are found in the chemicals, and the company doesn't use a buffer
zone when fumigating fields that border schools, homes, rivers and
streams, according to the suit. One school allegedly has chemical
residue from the spraying on its roof and playground.
These practices run counter to Chiquita's stated promises to
protect natural ecosystems and to demand equally high standards
from suppliers, the suit claims. Pages on Chiquita's website are
dedicated to its sustainability and conservation efforts and tout
its commitment to barring the use of chemical weed control, among
other practices.
The complaint also calls Cobigua a de facto subsidiary, citing
Chiquita logos on entrances to its fields and the Chiquita's
dependence on Cobigua for banana sales.
"Chiquita knew that consumers valued environmentally sound
production methods, and used its deceptive marketing to cover up
its foul production methods," Mr. Berman said.
The suit levels claims of fraud by concealment and unjust
enrichment, along with violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
Mr. Jablonowski is represented by Steve W. Berman, Tyler S.
Weaver, Elaine T. Byszewski and Christopher R. Pitoun --
christopherp@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
The case is Justin Jablonowski v. Chiquita Brands Inc., case
number 3:15-cv-00262, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
CMS ENERGY: SC Nears Opinion in Gas Index Price Reporting Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. Supreme Court
heard arguments in early 2015 in the Gas Index Price Reporting
Litigation and an opinion is expected in the first half of 2015.
CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(CMS MST), CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, have been named as defendants in five class
action lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural
gas price reporting to publications that report trade information.
Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and
options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and
artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas,
Missouri, and Wisconsin.
The following provides more detail on the cases in which CMS
Energy or its affiliates remain as parties:
* In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas
state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al. The
complaint alleges that during the putative class period, January
1, 2000 through October 31, 2002, the defendants engaged in a
scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The
plaintiffs are seeking statutory full consideration damages
consisting of the full consideration paid by the plaintiffs for
natural gas allegedly purchased from the defendants.
* In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional
Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed as a
putative class action in Missouri state court alleging violations
of Missouri antitrust laws. The defendants, including CMS Energy,
CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas
reporting activities. The plaintiffs are seeking full
consideration damages and treble damages.
* In 2006, a class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al.
v. XCEL Energy Inc., et al., was filed in Wisconsin state court on
behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between January 1, 2000 and October 31, 2002. The defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are
alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute. The
plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus exemplary
damages and attorneys' fees.
* In 2009, a class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System
v. CMS ERM, et al., was filed in circuit court in Wood County,
Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas Company, and
others. The plaintiff is seeking full consideration damages,
treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.
* In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity
as trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas
state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and
others. The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiff is seeking statutory full
consideration damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and
2001.
After removal to federal court, all of the cases described above
were transferred to the MDL. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against
CMS Energy defendants in the MDL cases were dismissed based on
FERC preemption. Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases. The
issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in
dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim. The plaintiffs did not appeal
the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases, but
other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants.
In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the MDL decision and remanded the case to the MDL judge
for further proceedings. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the MDL court's denial of leave to amend
to add federal antitrust claims.
In August 2013, the joint defense group in these cases, of which
CMS Energy defendants are members, filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In July 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to hear this case. Arguments were heard in
early 2015 and an opinion is expected in the first half of 2015.
COLLECTO INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, N.Y. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anchel Weissmandl, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS CHECK IF CA, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00805 (E.D.N.Y., February 16, 2015) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (718) 395-3459
Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com
CONSUMER DIRECT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liza Harlan, and similarly situated individuals v. Consumer Direct
for Florida, LLC, a Montana Corporation, and Consumer Direct
Management Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20583 (S.D. Fla.,
February 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, and an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and other damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants provide home-and community-based physical and
mental health care services, provide back office program
development and support to service providers embracing client-
centered planning, direction and control of services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Andrew Costales, Esq.
GARY A. COSTALES, PA
1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1230
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-9510
Facsimile: (305) 375-9511
E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com
COTY INC: Case Dismissal Bid Remains Under Judicial Consideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that a motion to dismiss a
securities complaint remains under judicial consideration.
During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States Southern District of New York against
the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the Company's IPO. The first complaint, filed on February 13,
2014, was captioned Eugene Stricker vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the
"Stricker Action"), while the second complaint, filed February 21,
2014, was captioned Norman C. Carey vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the
"Carey Action").
The Stricker Action and the Carey Action have been consolidated
under the caption In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation
("Securities Litigation"), and following the court's appointment
of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended
complaint (the "Securities Complaint") was filed on July 7, 2014.
The plaintiffs were permitted to further amend the Securities
Complaint in October 2014.
The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its
directors and certain of its executive officers under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
Class A Common Stock in the IPO, rescission, damages of an
unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief. The
Securities Complaint alleges, inter alia, a failure to disclose a
negative trend in color cosmetics and nail products sales, the end
of a partnership with a retailer, and destocking activity by U.S.
mass retailers.
In September 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Securities Complaint. At the court's discretion, the parties
continued to brief that motion following the October 2014
amendment of that complaint, and briefing was completed in
December 2014. The motion to dismiss remains under judicial
consideration.The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend it.
CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chava Lezell, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit
Collection Services, Case No. 1:15-cv-00794 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16,
2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
DELTA APPAREL: Records Liability Over CPSC Inquiry
--------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the company
recorded a liability related to an inquiry from the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission regarding a children's drawstring hoodie
product.
The Company previously received an inquiry from the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission ("Commission") regarding a children's
drawstring hoodie product sourced, distributed and sold by
Junkfood Clothing Company ("Junkfood"), and its compliance with
applicable product safety standards. The Commission subsequently
investigated the matter, including whether Junkfood complied with
the reporting requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act
("CPSA"), and the garments in question were ultimately recalled.
On or about July 25, 2012, Junkfood received notification from the
Commission staff alleging that Junkfood knowingly violated CPSA
Section 15(b) and that the staff will recommend to the Commission
a $900,000 civil penalty.
The Company disputes the Commission's allegations.
On August 27, 2012, Junkfood responded to the Commission staff
regarding its recommended penalty, setting forth a number of
defenses and mitigating factors that could result in a much lower
penalty, if any, ultimately imposed by a court should the matter
proceed to litigation. The Commission has since requested
additional information regarding the matter and issued a subpoena
for records and information.
"While we will continue to defend against these allegations, we
believe a risk of loss is probable. Based upon current
information, including the terms of previously published
Commission settlements and related product recall notices, should
the Commission seek enforcement of the recommended civil penalty
and ultimately prevail on its claims at trial we believe there is
a range of likely outcomes between $25,000 and an amount exceeding
$900,000, along with interest and the Commission's costs and fees.
During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, we recorded a liability
for what we believe to be the most likely outcome within this
range, and this liability remains recorded as of December 27,
2014," the Company said.
DELTA APPAREL: Class Certification Issue in 2013 Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the discovery
process in the California wage and hour litigation filed in March
2013 is ongoing and the issue of class certification remains
pending.
The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or
about March 13, 2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear
business unit at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution
facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and
unfair business practices with respect to meal and rest periods,
compensation and wage statements, and related claims (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint is brought as a class action and seeks
to include all of our Delta Activewear business unit's current and
certain former employees within California who are or were non-
exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint also
names as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent contractor of
Soffe, and a former employee, and seeks to include all current and
certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and the Soffe
independent contractor within California who are or were non-
exempt under applicable wage and hour laws."
Delta Apparel, Inc. is now the only remaining defendant in this
case. The Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
monetary damages and compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and
costs, and pre-judgment interest. The discovery process in this
matter is ongoing and the issue of class certification remains
pending.
DELTA APPAREL: Class Certification Issue in 2014 Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the discovery
process in the California wage and hour litigation filed in August
2014 is ongoing and the issue of class certification remains
pending.
The Company said, "On or about August 22, 2014, we were served
with an additional complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, by a former employee of
Junkfood and two former employees of Soffe at our Santa Fe
Springs, California distribution facility alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws and unfair business practices the
same or substantially similar to those alleged in the Complaint
and seeking the same or substantially similar relief as sought in
the Complaint. This complaint is brought as a class action and
seeks to include all current and certain former employees of
Junkfood, Soffe, our Delta Activewear business unit, the Soffe
independent contractor named in the Complaint and an individual
employee of such contractor within California who are or were non-
exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. Delta Apparel, Inc.
and the contractor employee have since been voluntarily dismissed
from the case and the remaining defendants are Junkfood, Soffe,
and the Soffe contractor. The discovery process in this matter is
ongoing and the issue of class certification remains pending."
"While we will continue to vigorously defend this action and
believe we have a number of meritorious defenses to the claims
alleged, we believe a risk of loss is probable. Based upon current
information, we believe there is a range of likely outcomes
between approximately $15,000 and $795,000. During the transition
period ended September 28, 2013, we recorded a liability for the
most likely outcome within this range, and this liability remained
recorded as of December 27, 2014. However, depending upon the
scope and size of any certified class and whether any of the
claims alleged ultimately prevail at trial, we could be required
to pay amounts exceeding $795,000."
DLORAH INC: Faces "Pouncie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Pouncie, Lindsey Gonzales, and Nichole Andrews-Coddington v.
Dlorah, Inc., d/b/a National American University, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00511 (N.D. Tex., February 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over
40 in a workweek.
Dlorah, Inc. owns and operates National American University and
does business in the State of Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John H Allen III, Esq.
Jennifer Nolte Williams, Esq.
JACKSON ALLEN & WILLIAMS, LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-2300
Facsimile: (214) 528-7755
E-mail: trey@jacksonallenfirm.com
jennifer@allenfirm.net
DRAFTKINGS: Faces False Advertising Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Kyle Swenson, writing for New Times Broward Palm Beach, reports
that in late January, a class-action lawsuit was filed in federal
court charging that one of the new industry leaders misleads
players with false claims.
Boston-based DraftKings is considered the second-largest online
outlet for fantasy betting. Court records indicate the company
handed out $200 million in prizes to the site's 1 million users in
2014. Each month, 200,000 players bet on fantasy action through
the site, records indicate. In August 2014, the company announced
it had secured $41 million in outside funding from a venture
capital firm.
DraftKings' growth is tied to its aggressive advertising -- which
is the problem, the lawsuit claims. In addition to having aired
1,782 television commercials in 2014, the site hooks potential
players with a juicy promise: "You're going to double your first
deposit, up to $600! That means that if you put in $100, you get
$200 to play with . . ."
Not so, the lawsuit claims. After signing up for DraftKings and
depositing money, "customers learn that the ubiquitously
advertised, 100-percent deposit match is nothing more than a
fa‡ade," the lawsuit says. "Despite promises in video promotions,
on the main DraftKings webpage, and within the large text boxes
where customers choose their deposit amounts, a customer's $100
does not become $200 upon deposit."
The lawsuit continues: "Specifically, customers must enter fantasy
contests and receive bonuses in incredibly small increments.
Rather than the guaranteed, instant, 100-percent deposit match,
customers receive as a bonus a mere 4 percent of every dollar they
put into play."
The lawsuit claims the company should be on the hook for false
advertisement and fraud.
"Our intention isn't to bring down the daily fantasy sports
industry," the plaintiff's attorney, Mason Kerns, tells New Times.
"Given how big it is, that wouldn't be possible. I think they
provide a great service, I just think it should be done in process
that doesn't make someone think they're getting double their
deposit."
If the lawsuit is verified as a class action suit, other plaintiff
can jump into the legal action. Kerns is confident. "If we
weren't confident we definitely wouldn't have filed it," he says.
"There might be some hurtles. I'm sure DraftKings is well
represented. I expect a battle."
E. I. DU PONT: Deal Reached With Insurance Carriers
---------------------------------------------------
E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company reached an agreement to recover an additional $35 million
from one of its remaining insurance carriers related to
Imprelis(R) lawsuits.
The company has received claims and has been served with multiple
lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis(R) herbicide caused
damage to certain trees. Sales of Imprelis(R) were suspended in
August 2011 and the product was last applied during the 2011
spring application season. The lawsuits seeking class action
status were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal
court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In February 2014, the court
entered the final order dismissing these lawsuits as a result of
the class action settlement.
As part of the settlement, DuPont paid about $7 million in
plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses. In addition, DuPont is
providing a warranty against new damage, if any, caused by the use
of Imprelis(R) on class members' properties through May 2015.
Certain class members opted out of the class action settlement and
made independent claims or filed suit in various state courts, the
majority of which were removed to federal court in Philadelphia.
In the third quarter 2014, the company settled or reached
settlements in principle for the majority of these claims and
lawsuits. Approximately 40 lawsuits are pending claiming property
and related damage. This represents a decrease of about 85 from
the number of lawsuits pending at December 31, 2013.
The company has established review processes to verify and
evaluate damage claims. There are several variables that impact
the evaluation process including the number of trees on a
property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of
the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to
naturally recover over time. Upon receiving claims, DuPont
verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical
review of the property.
As of December 31, 2013, DuPont had recorded charges of $1,175
million, within other operating charges, which represents the
company's best estimate of the loss associated with resolving
these claims. At December 31, 2014, DuPont had accruals of $261
million related to these claims and insurance receivables of $35
million. The company did not take any charges related to this
matter in 2014. DuPont recorded income of $210 million for
insurance recoveries, within other operating charges, for the year
ended December 31, 2014. The year ended December 31, 2013 included
net charges of $352 million, consisting of a $425 million charge
offset by $73 million of insurance recoveries. The year ended
December 31, 2012 included charges of $575 million. In January
2015, DuPont reached an agreement to recover an additional $35
million from one of its remaining insurance carriers.
The company has an applicable insurance program with a deductible
equal to the first $100 million of costs and expenses. Insurance
recoveries are recognized when collection of payment is considered
probable. The remaining coverage under the insurance program is
$300 million for costs and expenses in excess of its deductible.
DuPont has submitted requests for payment to its insurance
carriers for costs associated with this matter. The timing and
outcome remain uncertain.
E. I. DU PONT: Trial in Drinking Water Actions Set for Sept. 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the first
trial in the Drinking Water Actions is scheduled to begin in
September 2015, and the second in November 2015.
In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.
DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project. The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were
conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available
scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as
defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
human disease.
The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.
In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235
million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, the
company put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical
monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court
appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the
program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the
registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account.
In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.
Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At December 31, 2014, there
were approximately 2,900 lawsuits filed in various federal and
state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of about 2,800
over year end 2013. In accordance with a stipulation reached in
the third quarter 2014 and other court procedures, these lawsuits
have been or will be served and consolidated in multi-district
litigation in Ohio federal court ("MDL"). Based on information
currently available to the company the majority of the lawsuits
allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and
thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. There
are 27 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. Based on comments from
attorneys for the plaintiffs, DuPont expects additional lawsuits
may be filed. In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected
for the individual trial. The first trial is scheduled to begin in
September 2015, and the second in November 2015. DuPont denies the
allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously.
EATON CORP: Truck Makers Want Judge to Deny class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Hawes, writing for Land Line's landlinemag.com, reports
that several truck makers are urging a federal judge in Delaware
to deny class certification of an antitrust lawsuit filed by
trucking companies that purchased Class 8 trucks equipped with
Eaton transmissions.
The plaintiffs allege that several Class 8 truck makers entered
into exclusive contracts with Eaton Corp., the largest supplier of
Class 8 truck transmissions, in exchange for lucrative rebates and
incentives. However, the plaintiffs claim the rebates and
incentives offered to the truck makers were not shared or passed
through to the purchasers of the trucks.
The plaintiffs say the exclusive agreements limited their choice
of transmissions and eliminated a competitive check on pricing.
They are seeking class action status for all persons and entities
in the U.S. that purchased Class 8 vehicles that contained Eaton's
truck transmissions beginning in Oct. 1, 2002, until the present.
The defendants in the lawsuit include: Eaton Corp, Daimler Trucks
North America, Freightliner, Navistar International, International
Truck and Engine, Paccar, Kenworth, Peterbilt Motors, Volvo Trucks
North America and Mack Trucks.
The lawsuit was filed by Mark Wallach, who was the Chapter 7
trustee for Performance Transportation Services, which includes
several other subsidiaries.
Before seeking Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in 2007, the
Performance Transportation claimed to be the second largest
transporter of new automobiles and light trucks in North America.
The motor carrier claims that it purchased Eaton transmission
equipped trucks from one or more defendants.
"As a result of these purchases, (Performance Transportation
Services) sustained injury and was damaged by reason of the
antitrust violations alleged in this complaint," the court
documents states.
Other trucking companies have since joined the action, stating
that they also were also harmed because of Eaton's alleged
long-term agreements with major truck makers.
The lawsuit stems from a suit originally filed by ZF Meritor, a
joint merger of ZF Friedrichshafen AG and Meritor Inc., against
Eaton in 2010 for alleged anticompetitive practices in the heavy-
duty truck transmission market. In June 2014, Eaton agreed to pay
the two companies $500 million.
EXELIS INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
William McGill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ralph Hake, David F. Melcher, John J. Hamre, Paul J.
Kern, Herman E. Bulls, Patrick Moore, Mark L.
Reuss, Robert David Yost, Billie I. Williamson, Harris
Corporation, and Harris Communication Solutions (Indiana), Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00217 (S.D. Ind., February 12, 2015), arises out
of the Defendants' breached their fiduciary duty to secure and
obtain the best price reasonable under the circumstances for the
benefit of Plaintiff and the class members in connection with
Harris Corporation's proposed acquisition of all the outstanding
stock of Exelis Inc.
Exelis Inc. is an Indiana corporation headquartered in McLean,
Virginia. It is a diversified, global aerospace, defense and
information solutions company.
Harris Corporation is an international communications Equipment
Company focused on product, system, and service solutions.
The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Exelis
Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William N. Riley, Esq.
James A. Piatt, Esq.
PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, LLC
Hammond Block Building
301 Massachusetts Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 633-8787
Facsimile: (317) 633-8797
E-mail: wriley@price-law.com
jpiatt@price-law.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
mschreiner@faruqilaw.com
FAIRWAY GROUP: Magistrate Recommends Denial of Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairway Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that a
magistrate appointed by the district judge assigned to the
securities class action lawsuit recommended that the Company's and
the other defendants' motion to dismiss be denied.
In February and March 2014, three purported securities class
action lawsuits alleging violation of the federal securities laws
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers, certain of its directors and the
underwriters for its initial public offering. The actions were
consolidated on June 3, 2014 under the caption In re Fairway Group
Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-0950. On July 18,
2014, an amended class action complaint was filed, adding
affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges misleading
statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's initial public offering and in subsequent communications
regarding its business and financial results. On September 5,
2014, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
amended class action complaint. On January 20, 2015, the
Magistrate appointed by the district judge to whom the case was
assigned to review the motions and make a recommendation to the
judge recommended that the Company's and the other defendants'
motion to dismiss be denied.
FAIRWAY GROUP: Defending Against Wage and Hour Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fairway Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that a purported
wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed in May 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and employees. This suit alleges, among other things, that
certain of the Company's past and current employees were not
properly compensated in accordance with the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the Company believes that
these claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter
vigorously, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation.
FERGUSON, MO: Faces Class Action Over "Grotesque" Jail Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Pearce, writing for LA Times, reports that the city of
Ferguson, Mo., and another northern St. Louis suburb have been
accused of maintaining "grotesque" jail conditions for motorists
locked up because they couldn't pay fines for minor legal
infractions, according to two federal class-action lawsuits.
The lawsuits against Ferguson and the city of Jennings describe
conditions in which crowded cells are smeared with mucus, blood
and fecal matter and inmates are denied basic hygiene supplies and
medical care.
Some residents spend "three, four, five" weeks in the jails, not
to serve a criminal sentence but because they can't afford to pay
a fine to get out, said Brendan D. Roediger of the St. Louis
University School of Law.
"They're not sitting [in jail] because they've been sentenced to
jail for that long," Mr. Roediger told the Los Angeles Times.
"They're sitting because they can't pay to get out."
On Feb. 9, Ferguson's mayor, James Knowles III, denied the
"disturbing" claims made in the suits, which were filed on Feb. 8,
saying they were "not based on objective facts."
"The city disputes any contention that individuals in any specific
economic group were targeted for unfair treatment, that jail
detainees are abused in any way, that persons are routinely
confined in custody longer than three consecutive days, or that
the physical conditions in the jail were unsanitary or
unconstitutionally improper," the city said in a statement.
City officials in Jennings, population 14,756, which neighbors
Ferguson, population 21,111, did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.
St. Louis County's municipal courts gained unexpected prominence
last year after residents blamed the courts as one of the roots of
the racial unrest that erupted after the Aug. 9 shooting death of
18-year-old Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer.
Many residents described experiencing constant scrutiny and
ticketing by police for minor traffic offenses as they traveled
through northern St. Louis County's dense quilt of small suburbs,
whose municipal budgets rely heavily on the fines that come as a
result.
Opponents of the ticketing practice say the system preys on poor
residents who can't pay the disproportionate number of fines
levied against them. In the worst-case scenarios, they said, poor
but upstanding citizens become trapped in a cycle of poverty and
jail time because they cannot pay their fines, which can result in
warrants for their arrest.
The two class-action lawsuits were brought by the nonprofit
advocacy organizations Equal Justice Under Law and ArchCity
Defenders and by attorneys with the St. Louis University School of
Law Legal Clinics. The lawsuits contend that the jail conditions
and jailing for failure to pay fines violate numerous
constitutional rights.
ArchCity Defenders had known about the complaints over St. Louis
County's municipal courts' fines and police citations, but the
group started to learn about jail conditions after Brown was shot,
said Thomas Harvey, the group's executive director.
Attorneys handling the case encountered obstacles investigating
the jails because it was difficult to obtain records from city
officials and ascertain specific dates from inmates. The lawsuits
detail a system described as a "modern debtors' prison scheme" in
which residents are held against their will in poor conditions
without proper access to representation.
The complaints also describe a system in which inmates negotiate
their fines with the courts and jail guards in order to secure
their release -- only to discover, after posting bond, that they
would remain in jail on a separate warrant for a minor infraction.
The Jennings jail, for instance, serves as a jail for neighboring
municipalities, and inmates sometimes don't know which city is
legally holding them in custody, attorneys said.
Ferguson city officials said Police Chief Tom Jackson mandated in
2010 that the jail be cleaned on a daily basis and that inmates
have access to a toilet, washbasin, drinking water and a shower.
FIRST FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Sevi Fraylich, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. First Financial Asset Management, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00806 (E.D.N.Y., February 16, 2015) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (718) 395-3459
Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com
FLORIDA: May Take Eight Months to Show Medicaid Program Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Marbin Miller, writing for Miami Herald, reports that a
month ago, after presiding over a decade of litigation, U.S.
Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan concluded that Florida's public
insurance program for needy and disabled children was so
underfunded that impoverished children were sometimes forced to do
without necessary care.
At a hearing at Miami's federal courthouse on Jan. 30, lawyers for
the state said the problem has been fixed -- but it's going to
take them more time to prove it.
The state Attorney General's Office, which represents three health
and social service agencies in the class-action lawsuit, contends
that Florida's Medicaid insurance program for the needy now barely
resembles the insurer Judge Jordan found was in violation of
federal law. Within the past four months or so, the Medicaid
program has transitioned into a managed care model that, the state
says, will offer significantly better healthcare options for needy
children.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Albert J. Bowden III told
Judge Jordan at the Jan. 30 hearing that the state likely would
need until next fall for the results of the managed care
implementation to be available for review. The state hopes to
prove that Jordan's findings are "moot" because recent changes to
the insurance program will lead to major improvements in care.
The state will need the extra time, though, "to show you we can
meet our burden," Mr. Bowden said.
The state's challenge, Mr. Bowden said, was "getting the required
number of doctors for an adequate network of doctors so that kids
will get care -- which is what this case is about."
Administrators with the state Agency for Health Care
Administration, which oversees the Medicaid program, believe the
new managed care system will ensure that occurs, Mr. Bowden said.
Judge Jordan, who sits on the federal appeals court bench but was
a U.S. District Court judge when he first was assigned the case,
expressed reluctance to wait another six or eight months for the
state to show it has fixed the Medicaid program.
"It's one thing to change something on paper," Judge Jordan said.
"It's another to see if that change on paper works." With regard
to waiting months to determine whether Medicaid has dramatically
improved -- while taking no other action to fix it -- Jordan said:
"We can't do that, because this will never end. Facts change from
day to day."
"The heart of this case," Judge Jordan said, was AHCA, which long
has administered an insurance program that critics contend is
forced to ration care because lawmakers haven't increased funding.
"It's a money problem," Judge Jordan said. "It's an allocation
problem."
In December, Judge Jordan declared Florida's Medicaid program to
be in violation of several federal laws. In his 153-page ruling,
Jordan said lawmakers had for years set the state's Medicaid
budget at an artificially low level, causing pediatricians and
other specialists for children to opt out of the insurance
program. In some areas of the state, the judge wrote, parents had
to travel long distances to see specialists, such as neurologists
or orthopedists.
Judge Jordan's long-awaited ruling handed a victory to doctors and
children's advocates who had fought for almost a decade to force
the state to pay pediatricians enough money to ensure impoverished
children can receive adequate care.
At the Jan. 30 hearing -- the first since Judge Jordan's opinion
was released -- a lawyer for the plaintiffs said that his clients
don't believe that the state has reformed the Medicaid program.
Furthermore, attorney Stuart Singer said, Mr. Bowden's request for
another half-year to develop the state's case would, in effect,
"build in delay" so that children are forced to wait ever longer
for health and dental care. Mr. Singer, who represents, among
others, the Florida Pediatric Society, asked Judge Jordan to sign
a declaratory judgment requiring the state to improve pediatric
healthcare for children now.
Such a judgment, Mr. Singer said, might force the Legislature,
which will begin its annual lawmaking session March 3, to consider
setting aside enough new dollars to entice more pediatricians and
specialists to sign up with Medicaid, and, hence, make medical
care more readily available for needy children.
FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA INC: Court Stays "Simmons" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Henry Edward Autrey issued an opinion, memorandum
and order on February 17, 2015, granting a motion to stay the case
captioned BECK SIMMONS LLC, individually And on behalf of all
other similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC.,
Defendant, ASE NO. 4:14CV1161 HEA, (E.D. Mo.).
The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint alleging that
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA) by faxing or having an agent fax
advertisements without a proper opt-out notice as required by 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200. Defendants requested that the action be
stayed pending resolution of over twenty petitions for declaratory
ruling and/or waiver, filed with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), seeking resolution of the threshold legal issue
in this case, namely, the applicability of FCC regulation 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(3)(iv), which purports to govern
solicited faxes and requires those faxes to contain an opt-out
notice.
Judge Autrey ruled that the case is stayed until final rulings are
issued by the FCC on the petitions for declaratory ruling and/or
waiver, and on any appeals filed in connection with the ruling.
"The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs will be unduly
prejudiced by such a stay," she wrote in her ruling, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/zFT1mT from Leagle.com.
"Every 90 days, beginning May 17, 2015, Defendant shall advise the
Court of the status of the proceedings before the FCC and any
appeal filed in connection thereto," she added.
Jduge Autrey ordered the Clerk of Court to administratively close
this matter.
Beck Simmons LLC, iPlaintiff, represented by Max G. Margulis --
maxmargulis@margulislaw.com -- MARGULIS LAW GROUP.
Francotyp-Postalia, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine E.
Jacobi -- kej@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Michael L. Young --
myoung@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & Theodore J. MacDonald,
Jr. -- tmacdonald@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Over Zofran(R)-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tomisha LeClair, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian
of A.S., a Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-10429
(D. Mass., February 16, 2015) is brought for compensatory and
punitive damages arising from the alleged injuries to A.S. as a
result of her prenatal exposures to the prescription drug
Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron.
Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients, who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable -- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or
radiation treatments in cancer patients.
Ms. LeClair is a resident of Boston, Massachusetts. She is the
mother and natural guardian of A.S.
GSK is a Delaware limited liability company. GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware. GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo,
Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the
original New Drug Application for Zofran.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
Jessica H. Meeder, Esq.
JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
31 St. James Ave., Suite 365
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 933-1265
Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
BKetterer@myadvocates.com
kdougherty@myadvocates.com
JMeeder@myadvocates.com
- and -
Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th
New York, NY 10017 Floor
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
- and -
M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
Thomas Ayala, Esq.
Justin K. Victor, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com
tayala@gelaw.com
jvictor@gelaw.com
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Sharkey" Suit Over Product Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen A. Sharkey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GNC Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and "John Doe" Defendants 1-100, names and
addresses unknown, Case No. 1:15-cv-01020 (S.D.N.Y., February 13,
2015), alleges that the Defendants' Herbal Plus Gingko Biloba,
Herbal Plus St. John's Wort, Herbal Plus Ginseng, Herbal Plus
Echinacea and Herbal Plus Saw Palmetto are mislabeled products
because they lacks the integral ingredient listed on the product
label. Instead, each contains contaminants, substitutes and
fillers that are not identified on the product label.
GNC Holdings, Inc. a Pennsylvania corporation that operates the
world's leading nutritional-supplements retail chain devoted to
items such as vitamins, supplements, minerals, and dietary
products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Scott Schaffer,Esq.
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
nmelito@fslawfirm.com
GO FRAC: Illegally Terminates Employees, "Williams" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wildrick Williams, Damien DeLoach, Devin Jermaine Gaut and Kelvin
Dion King, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Go Frac, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00199 (E.D. Tex.,
February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide 60 days' advance written notice before Mass Layoffs.
Go Frac, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that operates
oil and gas well sites of in various parts of Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, PC
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website Contents
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Association of the Deaf, on behalf of its members, C.
Wayne Dore, Christy Smith, Lee Nettles, and Diane Nettles, on
behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated
persons defined below v. Harvard University, and the President and
Fellows of Harvard College, Case No. 3:15-cv-30023 (D. Mass.,
February 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's website online
content that is not captioned, or is inaccurately or
unintelligibly captioned, making it inaccessible for individuals
who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Harvard University is the oldest institution of higher education
in the United States that is a corporation incorporated and with a
principal place of business in Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Murphy, Esq.,
DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.
32 Industrial Drive East
Northampton, MA, 01060
Telephone: (413) 584-6337
Facsimile: (800) 222-5619
E-mail: tmurphy@dlc-ma.org
- and -
Christine M. Griffin, Esq.
Stanley J. Eichner, Esq.
Richard M. Glassman, Esq.
DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.
11 Beacon Street, Suite 925
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 723-8455
Facsimile: (800) 872-9992
E-mail: cgriffin@dlc-ma.org
seichner@dlc-ma.org
rglassman@dlc-ma.org
- and -
Timothy P. Fox, Esq.
Sarah M. Morris, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER
104 Broadway, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (303) 757-7901
E-mail: tfox@creeclaw.org
smorris@creeclaw.org
- and -
Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
Julie Wilensky, Esq.
LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
476 9th Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4048
Telephone: (510) 839-6824
E-mail: blee@lewisfeinberg.com
jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com
HOME DEPOT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Manopla" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Manopla and Evelyn Manopla, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Home Depot USA, Inc. and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:15-cv-01120 (D.N.J., February 12, 2015), seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of contacting the Plaintiff and the
class members on their cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system.
Home Depot USA, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a
wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and
construction supplies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS LAW, LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 660-8169
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Ari@MarcusLawNJ.com
- and -
Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (212) 354-0030
Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA: Settles Another Cash Seizure Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Hart, writing for MyNews4.com, reports that there's another
settlement to report involving cash seizures in Humboldt county.
The county has already paid back $40,000 plus attorneys fees to
one motorist who had his money taken during a traffic stop by
Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove. Now the county has
settled another case which could become part of a class action
lawsuit. Reno attorney John Ohlson filed the suit after his
client, Trevor Payne, had his money taken by the same deputy, Lee
Dove. In this case it was $10,000.
Mr. Dove has become well known for posing for this picture showing
off the money he'd taken during one of these stops. It's
important to point out in neither case was the motorist arrested.
But Deputy Dove still seized the cash they were carrying.
Now Humboldt County has agreed to once again pay back all the
money and pay for the attorneys fees. "I think they've had
enough. I think the electorate has spoken. I think the county
coffers have expressed that. I think they're through," said Mr.
Ohlson, referring to Humboldt County's practice of seizing
motorists' money.
Humboldt County is now in litigation with as many as 20 other
motorists who were pulled over and may have had their money taken
illegally. The Assistant District Attorney, Kevin Pasquale, tells
News 4 this settlement money is paid out of an insurance fund. He
says it does not come out of the county's general budget.
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Filed Responsive Pleadings in "Hamilton"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company has filed responsive pleadings in the Hamilton wage and
hour case and, following initial discovery, is positioning the
cases to obtain a dismissal of all claims.
The Company is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking
class action certification that were filed between August 29, 2012
and June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. Each of these cases is among several others
filed by Plaintiffs' attorney against contractors working in the
Port Arthur, Texas Motiva plant on various projects over the last
few years. The claims are based on alleged failure to compensate
for time spent bussing to and from the plant, donning safety wear
and other activities. Management does not expect the Company will
face significant exposure for any unpaid wages.
In a separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a
federal district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the
busses is not compensable.
On January 11, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit upheld the district court's ruling finding no liability
for wages for time spent bussing into the facility, and on October
8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review plaintiffs'
appeal of the Fifth Circuit dismissal of their claims for
compensation for time spent bussing to the facility, effectively
reducing the Company's risk of liability on this issue in its
cases.
"Our investigation indicates that all claims for time spent on
other activities either were inapplicable to the Company's
employees or took place during times for which the Company's
employees were compensated. We have filed responsive pleadings
and, following initial discovery, are positioning the cases to
obtain a dismissal of all claims. As of December 31, 2014, we have
not recorded a reserve for this matter, as we believe the
likelihood of our responsibility for damages is not probable and a
potential range of exposure is not estimable," the Company said.
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Dismissal of Providence Case Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Annual
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 5, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the purported class
action lawsuits filed by the City of Providence, Rhode Island,
against more than 40 defendants, including "Exchange Defendants",
"Brokerage Defendants" and "HFT (High Frequency Trading)
Defendants".
In April 2014, the first of four purported class action lawsuits
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Southern District") by the City of Providence,
Rhode Island, against more than 40 defendants, including "Exchange
Defendants", "Brokerage Defendants" and "HFT (High Frequency
Trading) Defendants" (the "City of Providence lawsuit"). New York
Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of the Company's
subsidiaries, were among the named Exchange Defendants.
On July 2, 2014, the court ordered the cases consolidated for all
purposes, and appointed lead plaintiffs. On September 3, 2014, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims
against only a subset of the original Exchange Defendants,
including New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., and
also asserting claims against Barclays PLC ("Barclays"), a
subsidiary of which operates an alternative trading system known
as Barclays LX.
The lead plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class of "all public
investors" who bought or sold stock from April 18, 2009 to the
present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated by the
remaining Exchange Defendants or on Barclays LX. The amended
complaint asserts violations by all remaining Exchange Defendants
of Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Exchange Act, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, jointly
and severally, as well as various forms of equitable relief. The
defendants filed a motion on November 3, 2014 to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint asserting the same legal claims and
substantially the same factual allegations. On January 23, 2015,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.
On October 2, 2014, Barclays filed a motion before the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel")
requesting that a separate lawsuit filed against Barclays in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California be
transferred to the Southern District judge handling the City of
Providence lawsuit for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial
proceedings. On December 12, 2014, the MDL Panel entered an order
granting Barclays's motion and transferring the matter to the
Southern District. Depending on the outcome of further pre-trial
proceedings to occur in the Southern District, the scope of this
litigation could be expanded.
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Bid to Dismiss "Lanier" Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Annual
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 5, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014,
that the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed
by Harold Lanier, and the motion remains pending.
In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the Southern District by Harold Lanier against the securities
exchanges that are participants in each of the three national
market system data distribution plans -- the Consolidated Tape
Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, the Nasdaq UTP Plan, and
the Options Price Reporting Authority (the "Plans") -- which are
established under the Exchange Act and regulated by the SEC.
On August 15, 2014, Lanier filed amended complaints in each of the
three lawsuits but did not alter the named defendants. New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC, which are
our subsidiaries, are among the defendants named in one or more of
the suits. Lanier is claiming to sue on behalf of him and all
other similarly situated subscribers to the market data
disseminated by the Plans. Lanier's allegations include that the
exchange participants in the Plans breached agreements with
subscribers by disseminating market data in a discriminatory
manner in that other "preferred" customers allegedly received
their data faster than the proposed class.
The complaints seek, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, restitution of the putative class's subscription fees
paid to the defendants, disgorgement of the fees paid by the so-
called preferred customers, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
On September 29, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the motion remains pending.
JL BARNES: Miami Attorney Adds AAJ as Defendant in Junk Fax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Miami attorney suing over so-called "junk" faxes has now amended
his complaint to include the American Association for Justice.
Plaintiff Timothy Blake filed his original complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in October.
Blake sued J.L. Barnes Insurance Agency Inc., doing business as
JLBG Health, over a fax he received in July from the company -- an
insurance brokerage and benefits management firm -- promoting its
products and services.
The AAJ, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, is
a member association of JLBG Health.
JLBG Health's fax, according to Mr. Blake's complaint, promoted
the AAJ Health Care Marketplace. The website markets JLBG's
products and services to AAJ members, employees and their family
members.
Mr. Blake, who is a member of the AAJ, argues that the fax failed
to contain an opt-out notice, as required by the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. The law restricts telephone
solicitations, i.e. telemarketing, and the use of automated
telephone equipment. In particular, the TCPA limits the use of
automatic dialing systems, artificial or prerecorded voice
messages, SMS text messages and fax machines. It also specifies
several technical requirements for fax machines, autodialers and
voice messaging systems -- principally with provisions requiring
identification and contact information of the entity using the
device to be contained in the message.
"A compliant opt-out notice is required to be included on all
Facsimile Advertisements by the TCPA and its implementing
regulations," Mr. Blake's original complaint stated.
In November, Mr. Blake added the AAJ -- the world's largest trial
bar -- as a named defendant in the proposed class action. He
argues that the AAJ benefits from sending the faxes, as it
receives royalty payments from JLBG Health when its members
purchase the company's insurance products and/or services.
In January, the AAJ filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Blake's amended
complaint or is asking that the action be stayed pending
resolution of petitions filed by the defendants with the Federal
Communications Commission.
"This case should be dismissed, without prejudice, or stayed
pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine, the Hobbs Act and
the Court's inherent powers, because the FCC is expected to issue
an order mooting Plaintiff's claim," the bar association wrote.
"Prior to his alleged receipt of the single, one-page facsimile on
July 10, 2014, Plaintiff had provided AAJ with his express
invitation and permission to send him facsimile advertisements.
Thus, the facsimile advertisement at issue is considered
'solicited' under the TCPA."
As the AAJ notes in its motion, there has been great debate in
recent years as to whether opt-out notices are required for
solicited facsimile advertisements.
Mainly because the TCPA expressly applies only to unsolicited
facsimile advertisements; the regulation promulgated by the FCC
purportedly requiring opt-out notices in solicited facsimile
advertisements also expressly applies only to unsolicited
facsimile advertisements; and the FCC expressly stated that the
opt-out notice requirement only applies to unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in the order promulgating the regulation that
purportedly requires opt-out notices in solicited facsimile
advertisements.
"Accordingly, a number of businesses engaged in litigation
involving this issue petitioned the FCC for clarification," the
AAJ wrote.
In October, the commission issued a declaratory ruling stating
that opt-out notices must be included in solicited facsimile
advertisements.
The FCC recognized, however, that the requirement was not
previously clear and that the commission's prior guidance caused
confusion. As a result, the FCC granted the petitioners a
retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for solicited
facsimile advertisements and a six-month window within which to
come into compliance.
The FCC then expressly invited similarly situated entities to
request the same waivers.
The defendants in this case have filed petitions with the
commission seeking such waivers.
The AAJ argues in its motion that if their petitions are granted
-- which, they contend, is "virtually certain" -- Mr. Blake's
claims will fail as a matter of law.
"To proceed with litigation at this time would not only create the
potential of inconsistent rulings in TCPA cases and risk wasting
the time and resources of the Court and parties, it would also be
highly prejudicial to Defendants and provide no benefit to
Plaintiff," the bar association wrote.
Shawn A. Heller and Joshua A. Glickman of the Social Justice Law
Collective PL, in Washington, D.C., and Peter and Richard Bennett
of Florida-based law firm Bennett & Bennett are representing Blake
and the proposed class in their lawsuit.
When asked about the AAJ's dismissal arguments -- and whether, if
successful, they could hurt other plaintiffs attorneys' ability to
bring similar lawsuits -- they declined to comment.
"We have no comment beyond our court filings," Richard Bennett
wrote in an email.
In a Jan. 26 response to the motion, the plaintiffs argue that the
AAJ's mootness argument is "wholly reliant" on their "false
assertion" that Blake consented to receive the fax. They also
argue that lack of consent is not an element that the plaintiffs
need to prove or plead.
"In the event that Defendants receive a waiver, consent would be,
at most, an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the
burden of proof, warranting discovery and litigation, not a stay,"
the plaintiffs wrote.
They continued, "Defendants' Motion further mischaracterizes both
the holding and impact of the FCC's Oct. 30, 2014, Order.
Contrary to Defendants' Position, the 2014 Junk Fax Order supports
Plaintiff's claims, and moots nothing.
"Neither party has challenged the validity of any administrative
order and there are no issues currently pending before the FCC
that are also before this Court."
In a reply to the response, filed on Feb. 5, the defendants
contend the issue at hand is "much simpler" than the plaintiffs
"would have the court believe."
"Plaintiff alleges a claim based entirely on solicited facsimile,
such that the FCC's forthcoming ruling will wholly dispose of his
claim. In his briefing, Plaintiff contends, on the other hand,
that his claim involves both solicited and unsolicited facsimiles,
such that the FCC's forthcoming ruling will not dispose of this
case, but will instead narrow the issues and provide Defendants
with an unassailable affirmative defense," the reply states.
"Whichever is correct, the FCC's forthcoming ruling will clearly
have a tremendous impact on this case. Indeed, that ruling will
have the force of law and anything that occurs in the interim will
either be moot, superfluous or require vigorous reexamination to
ensure compliance with the FCC's ruling. Accordingly, both the
primary jurisdiction doctrine and the Hobbs Act favor dismissal or
imposition of a stay.
"Moreover, since this case is at the pleading stage and no
prejudice will be suffered, a stay pursuant to the Court's
inherent powers is also favored."
The defendants contend Blake and the other plaintiffs are asking
the court to ignore the "clear impact" of the commission's
forthcoming rule and "allow this case to immediately proceed in a
textbook waste of judicial and party resources."
"Unable to articulate a basis for his request, Plaintiff tries to
confuse the issues by advancing a number of fragile and baseless
arguments that, when examined, reveal the true purpose of his
opposition," the defendants wrote in their reply.
Steve Augustino -- saugustino@kelleydrye.com -- a partner at
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP's Washington, D.C., office, said the case
is an "interesting" one because there are two parties to the
litigation. However, the case, itself, is a common one.
Mr. Augustino, who focuses his practice on telecommunications and
enforcement matters, is part of a team at Kelley Drye that is
tracking the number of active TCPA petitions before the FCC.
He said he was somewhat surprised that the FCC adopted the
approach it did, inviting entities to apply for waivers.
"I think the FCC created more work for themselves by addressing it
the way they did," he said, adding that it seems a little
"overkill" that on every single fax -- even solicited ones -- the
recipient must be warned they can opt out.
KUBRA DATA: Illegally Collects Surcharges, "Wojcik" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Wojcik, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kubra Data Transfer Ltd., Corp., a New York
corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00299 (M.D. Fla., February 11,
2015), alleges that the Defendant imposed a surcharge against
consumers and businesses who choose to purchase goods or services
with a credit card without a Florida license to conducts a large-
scale money transmitter business.
Kubra Data Transfer Ltd., Corp. is a funds transmission service
and bill payment processing company incorporated in New York and
principally located in Edison, New Jersey. It provides electronic
bill payment processing services for several industries, including
utility companies such as Duke Energy Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bret Leon Lusskin Jr., Esq.
BRET LUSSKIN, PA
Suite 302, 20803 Biscayne Blvd.
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (954) 454-5841
Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com
- and -
James Salvatore Giardina, Esq.
THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP, PLLC
Suite 200, 3104 W Waters Ave
Tampa, FL 33614-2877
Telephone: (813) 413-5610
Facsimile: (866) 535-7199
E-mail: james@consumerrightslawgroup.com
- and -
Scott David Owens, Esq.
SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235
Hollywood, FL 33019-2930
Telephone: (954) 589-0588
Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
KUMQUAT PROPERTIES: NY County S.C. Ruling in "Astil" Case Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the action captioned JOSEPH ASTIL, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v. KUMQUAT PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, 14285,
151650/13. 2015 NY Slip Op 01544 which alleged personal property
damage, the Supreme Court of New York County entered on November
22, 2013, an order which granted plaintiff's motion to voluntarily
discontinue the action, with prejudice as to the named plaintiff
and without prejudice as to all other similarly situated
plaintiffs, and denied as moot defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment dismissing the proposed class action claims with
prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in an opinion dated February 19, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/TS9kJv from Leagle.com, held that
"[t]he motion court providently exercised its discretion in
granting plaintiff's motion to discontinue this action . . .
Given the foregoing determination, the motion court properly
denied as moot defendants' motion for partial summary judgment
dismissing the proposed class action claims with prejudice. As the
motion court noted, even if it had granted defendants' motion on
the ground that plaintiff failed to seek class certification
within the time required by CPLR 902, the determination would
apply only to the named plaintiff and would not bar other
potential class members from bringing an action and seeking class
certification (see Huebner v Caldwell & Cook, 139 Misc.2d 288, 292
[Sup Ct, NY County 1988] ["when a class is not certified, unnamed
plaintiffs are not subject to res judicata effects of judicial
decisions pertaining to the class"])."
"We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them
unavailing," ruled the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
New York.
Kerley, Walsh, Matera & Cinquemani, PC, Seaford (Lauren B. Bristol
-- lbristol@kerleywalsh.com -- of counsel), for appellants.
Imbesi Christensen, New York (Jeanne Christensen --
jchristensen@lawicm.com -- of counsel), for respondent.
LAKE INC: Faces "Ortiz-Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Faustino Ortiz-Martinez, on behalf of himself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. C. Lake, Inc.,
an Illinois corporation, d/b/a C-Lake, Inc. and Rosati's
Pizza of Crystal Lake, and Nilofer Damani, an individual,
a/k/a Nelofer Damani, Case No. 1:15-cv-01353 (N.D. Ill., February
12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Crystal Lake,
Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq.
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 322-1100
Facsimile: (312) 322-1106
E-mail: n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
LAWN BEAUTICIANS: Faces "Begin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Begin, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
The Lawn Beauticians, Inc. ("LBI"), Forest Hills Nurseries, Corp.
("FHN"), Alan Muoio, David Muoio, Debbie Muoio, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00048 (D.R.I., February 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of selling goods and
services relating to landscape products and services in multiple
states, including Rhode Island.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wayne Begin, PRO SE
6 Main Street Ext #3327
Plymouth, MA 02361
LINKEDIN CORP: To Settle Class Action Over Email Invitations
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for OnlineMediaDaily, reports that LinkedIn
is moving toward resolving a class-action lawsuit alleging that it
wrongly sends email invitations to users' friends, court records
reveal.
The social networking company and lawyers for a group of consumers
say in a status report that they "have accepted a mediator's
proposal for a class action settlement subject to reaching
agreement on remaining material terms and execution of a written
settlement agreement."
LinkedIn and the consumers say they intend to file a motion
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement by March 24,
assuming they can agree on "all material terms."
No details yet about the possible terms were provided in the
status report, which was submitted on Feb. 5 to U.S. District
Court Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California.
The potential settlement would resolve a dispute dating to
September of 2013, when four LinkedIn users -- including a former
manager of international advertising sales for The New York Times
-- alleged that the company violated the federal wiretap law by
"hacking" into their accounts, in order to harvest their friends'
email addresses.
The users also argued that LinkedIn misappropriated their names
and identities by sending a series of three email invitations to
their friends. The LinkedIn users acknowledged that the company
asked them for permission to "grow" their networks, but argued
that the service made only "cryptic disclosures" before harvesting
email addresses and sending invitations to those contacts.
Judge Koh narrowed the lawsuit last June, when she rejected the
"hacking" claim on the ground that the users agreed to transmit an
initial email invitation to their friends. But she also ruled
that the users didn't necessarily agree to send the two follow-up
emails.
LinkedIn subsequently asked Judge Koh to dismiss all allegations
relating to those two follow-up emails. Among other arguments,
the social networking service said that it has a free-speech right
to send follow-up emails, on the theory that the service helps
people to communicate with each other.
Judge Koh rejected LinkedIn's arguments on that point last
November, after which the company and class counsel met with a
mediator, in hopes of resolving the case.
LIONS GATE: Another Former Intern to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that another former
intern on The Wendy Williams Show sought to join the legal action
first filed by Anthony Tart against Lionsgate in early October
last year. On February 4, Lloyd Ambinder of NYC firm Virginia &
Ambinder LLP filed a consent request in federal court for
Danielle Minch to join the collective action seeking unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The firm is also representing
Tart in the matter. Lionsgate responded to Tart's October 3
complaint on November 26 with a request that the court dismiss the
matter "in its entirety, with prejudice."
In this particular case, Ms. Minch was an intern on the Lionsgate-
distributed and Debmar-Mercury-produced daytime talker Lionsgate
from January to May last year in NYC. That puts her well within
the three-year statute of limitations on cases like this in the
federal courts. Like Mr. Tart and other interns in other cases in
recent years have claimed, Ms. Minch's desire "to recover any
unpaid wages that might be owed to me" indicates that she worked
like a full-time employee on Williams' show.
No details are given in Ms. Minch's documents seeking to join the
Tart initiated case, but her LinkedIn profile does provide some
sense of the work she actually did on TWWS. Ms. Minch says online
that she assisted "in audience casting and briefing for Ask Wendy
and Eye Candy segments of the show. She also claims that she
researched "celebrity talent" and helped film the "Street Talk
segment." Although it was just recently filed, Ms. Minch actually
signed the consent back on Jan. 25.
In the plaintiff and potential plaintiff's corner, Virginia &
Ambinder have some experience when it comes to the courts and
interns. They were the lawyers in the very short-lived
David Letterman intern action against CBS and the soon-to-be-
retired host's production company last year. They also are the
legal reps in the recently filed class action against CBS and CBS
Radio by a former intern.
So far, Judge Alison Nathan has not ruled on the collective action
nor Minch's desire to be a part of it. But the former TWWS intern
could be the first of many seeking to join the case. In his
complaint, Mr. Tart -- who was at TWWS from August to December
2012 -- says that almost from its debut in July 2008, the show has
violated federal and NY State laws. He also claimed his case
represented more than 100 TWWS interns. When and if the court
certifies the matter, other potential plaintiffs have 60 days to
join. Back in summer 2013, Fox renewed TWWS through the 2016-17
season.
The defendants are represented by Christopher Parlo --
cparlo@morganlewis.com -- and Sam Shaulson --
sshaulson@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.
LODGE AT KENNEBUNK: Faces Suit Over Violation of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Chenail, an individual v. The Lodge at Kennebunk, LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00065-JDL (D. Me., February 16, 2015) alleges
that the Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, and
others who are similarly situated, by denying access to, and full,
safe and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and accommodations at the Lodge in
derogation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. Chenail suffered a spinal cord injury that resulted in
paralysis and requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility.
The Lodge at Kennebunk, LLC, is a limited liability company
registered to do and conducting business in the state of Maine.
The Defendant is the owner, lessee or operator of the real
properties and improvements which is the subject of this action,
specifically The Lodge at Kennebunk located in Kennebunk, Maine.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Chester, Esq.
SCHWARTZ ROLLER & ZWILLING
600 Vestavia Parkway, Suite 251
Birmingham, AL 35216
Telephone: (205) 822-2701
Facsimile: (205) 822-2702
E-mail: ezwilling@szalaw.com
- and -
Lynne A. Williams, Esq.
13 Albert Meadow
Bar Harbor, ME 04609
Telephone: (207) 266-6327
E-mail: lwilliamslaw@earthlink.net
MAGIC CELLULAR: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Martinez-Perez and Luis Lopez, individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated v. Magic Cellular, Inc. and
Francisco Hinojosa, Case No. 1:15-cv-01348 (N.D. Ill., February
12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.
Magic Cellular, Inc. owns and operates a mobile phone shop in
Chicago, 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
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Sued Over Deaf-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
National Association of the Deaf, on behalf of its members,
C. Wayne Dore, Christy Smith, Lee Nettles, and Diane Nettles, on
behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated
persons defined below v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Case No. 3:15-cv-30024 (D. Mass., February 12, 2015), arises out
of the Defendant's website online content that is not captioned,
or is inaccurately or unintelligibly captioned, making it
inaccessible for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology is one of the country's most
distinguished institutions of higher education and is a
corporation incorporated and with a principal place of business in
Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Murphy, Esq.,
DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.
32 Industrial Drive East
Northampton, MA, 01060
Telephone: (413) 584-6337
Facsimile: (800) 222-5619
E-mail: tmurphy@dlc-ma.org
- and -
Christine M. Griffin, Esq.
Stanley J. Eichner, Esq.
Richard M. Glassman, Esq.
DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.
11 Beacon Street, Suite 925
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 723-8455
Facsimile: (800) 872-9992
E-mail: cgriffin@dlc-ma.org
seichner@dlc-ma.org
rglassman@dlc-ma.org
- and -
Timothy P. Fox, Esq.
Sarah M. Morris, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER
104 Broadway, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (303) 757-7901
E-mail: tfox@creeclaw.org
smorris@creeclaw.org
- and -
Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
Julie Wilensky, Esq.
LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
476 9th Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4048
Telephone: (510) 839-6824
E-mail: blee@lewisfeinberg.com
jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com
METRO BROKERS: Faces "Echols" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Echols, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Metro Brokers, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00426 (N.D.
Ga., February 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.
Metro Brokers, Inc. is a licensed real estate broker in Georgia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
Benjamin F. Barrett Jr., Esq.
BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 214-0120
Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com
ben@bf-llp.com
- and -
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
Suite 4530, 33 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square
Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
jyoung@sommerspc.com
MICHAELS STORES: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on Feb. 9 disclosed
that it has filed a class-action lawsuit against Michaels Stores
concerning the manner in which it performs employee background
checks. The action is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Raini
Burnside v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-03010-MDH
(filed January 9, 2015).
The Burnside case alleges that Michaels violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) by conducting background checks on thousands
of prospective and current employees without properly disclosing
that a check would be performed. An employer who fails to comply
with the FCRA may be liable to the employee or job applicant for
any actual damages or statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per
violation.
If you are a current or former Michaels employee or job applicant
who applied for a position within the last two years and would
like additional information about this class-action lawsuit,
please contact Mark S. Greenstone, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, by
telephone: (310) 201-9156, or by email to
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com
MWI VETERINARY: Faces Suit by Winners Circle Investment Club
------------------------------------------------------------
MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that Winners
Circle Investment Club filed a purported stockholder class action.
On January 11, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with AmerisourceBergen
Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("AmerisourceBergen"), and
Roscoe Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of AmerisourceBergen ("Merger Sub" or
"Purchaser").
On February 3, 2015, Winners Circle Investment Club filed a
purported stockholder class action against the Company,
AmerisourceBergen, Purchaser and the Company's Board in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned
Winners Circle Investment Club v. MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. et
al., No. 10608. Winners Circle Investment Club's lawsuit alleges
that the Company's Board breached its fiduciary duties in
evaluating, negotiating, and approving the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement and by causing the
dissemination of purportedly materially misleading information
about such transactions. Winners Circle Investment Club also
alleges that the Company, AmerisourceBergen and Purchaser aided
and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties. Winners Circle
Investment Club seeks to enjoin or rescind such transactions and
requests attorneys' fees and damages in an unspecified amount.
The defendants believe these claims are without merit.
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Faces Major Decisions Amid Aaron Hernandez Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lester Munson, writing for ESPN.com, reports that the
Aaron Hernandez trial, which began on Jan. 29 and will determine
whether he will spend the rest of his life in prison, is not the
only dramatic and important legal case involving sports that will
be decided in the coming weeks.
On the 15th floor of the U.S. courthouse in Minneapolis, a
68-year-old judge is pondering a ruling that could lead to the
greatest victory ever for NFL players in their long history of
battles with league owners. The ruling from Chief U.S. District
Judge Michael Davis could come in a few days or a few weeks, and
it will determine whether the players and their union will be
permitted to pursue a collusion claim that could net the players
$3 billion.
In a second NFL case, a federal judge in Philadelphia will decide
whether the class-action concussion settlement is fair to players
even though it provides no benefits for those suffering from
chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the most common concussion
injury.
And the National Labor Relations Board is due to decide whether
college football players are employees who are entitled to form a
union. It's not inconceivable that all of these rulings could
come before the Hernandez trial ends.
The collusion case
The collusion dispute in the NFL goes back to the 2010 season.
The year marked the last of collective bargaining agreement
between the players and the owners, and it was supposed to be a
year with no salary cap, a potential bonanza for players. The
players say they were surprised to learn two years later, after
they had agreed to a new CBA, that all but four teams had observed
a cap that had been "fraudulently concealed."
The players had powerful evidence of a collusion conspiracy in a
series of statements from John Mara of the New York Giants, who
complained that the rival Dallas Cowboys spent $53 million "in
violation of the spirit of the salary cap" that was not supposed
to exist. "They attempted to take advantage of a one-year
loophole, and, quite frankly, I think they're lucky they didn't
lose draft picks," said Mara, team president.
George McCaskey of the Chicago Bears, another third-generation
owner, added fuel to the fire when he observed to the Chicago
Tribune: "It's very important that everybody plays by the same set
of rules. If they tell people what the rules are, they all have
to play by them."
The problem for the players, though, is that in the 2011 CBA, they
signed a binding legal agreement to dismiss "all claims, known and
unknown, whether pending or not . . . including asserted
collusion" during the 2010 uncapped season.
The stipulation was enough for U.S. District Judge David Doty to
reject the players' claim of fraud and to dismiss the players'
collusion claim in December 2012. The players, in their appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, managed to convince
three judges that they were entitled to "an opportunity to meet"
the "heavy burden" of proving that, because of the secret salary
cap, the stipulation was "fraudulently" obtained.
Judge Davis, who replaced Doty after the high court reversal, will
either grant the players' their demand for sworn interrogations of
commissioner Roger Goodell, Mara, Patriots owner Robert Kraft,
Redskins owner Dan Snyder, and other NFL executives, or he will
terminate the players' quest.
If Judge Davis rules for the players, it will be a major victory
and could lead an award of as much as $3 billion -- the estimated
$1 billion in salary lost under the secret cap would be tripled
under the terms of the CBA.
The concussion settlement
While NFL players under contract in 2010 await the decision in the
collusion case, thousands of older players await a decision on the
proposed settlement of their concussion litigation. U.S. District
Court Judge Anita Brody will decide whether to approve the
settlement proposed by the league and the lawyers (class counsel)
who negotiated the settlement for the players.
It's been more than two months since Brody held the final
settlement hearing, and the class counsel and the players who have
objected to the deal have continued to file briefs and written
evidence for her to review. Both groups claim that court
decisions made since the hearing support their conflicting
positions.
The class counselors argue that the settlement is a fair
compromise that recognizes the uncertainties the players would
face if they pushed their lawsuits to trial.
A decision issued in San Francisco in December may be a factor
that Brody considers as she makes her decision: A federal judge
dismissed Hall of Famer Richard Dent's claim that the NFL had
failed properly to protect players from the overuse of pain
medication, ruling that any medical dispute was pre-empted by the
CBA. It's exactly what the class counselors were considering when
they began the settlement negotiations.
Even more disturbing for players who wish to pursue their lawsuits
outside of the settlement was a statement in the Dent ruling from
U.S. District Judge William Alsup that "there is simply no [rule
of law] that has imposed upon a sports league a . . . duty to
police the health-and-safety concerns of players by the clubs."
The biggest concern among players who have objected to the
settlement is the certainty that many will develop mood and
behavior disorders as the first steps toward CTE, a condition that
even the settlement lawyers agreed in a website posting was "the
most serious and harmful disease that results from NFL an
concussions." After the settlement was reached and didn't include
compensation for early CTE, the "most serious and harmful"
description was removed from the settlement attorneys' website.
In a powerful brief filed after Brody's fairness hearing, the
objecting players, led by attorney Steven Molo, included sworn
statements from nine world-class neurologists and
neuropsychologists who confirm that CTE is a disease that is
produced by repetitive concussions, an assertion that the
settlement lawyers refused to accept after they made their
agreement with the NFL.
The objecting players and their lawyers even checked up on the
opinions of the experts hired by the settlement lawyers. One of
them, Kristine Yaffe of University of California-San Francisco, in
a sworn statement for the settlement lawyers said that "it is not
yet possible to state with any certainty whether CTE causes any
mood or behavior symptoms."
In a recently filed brief, though, Mr. Molo and the objecting
players explained that in one of her previous peer-reviewed
articles, Ms. Yaffe said the opposite: "CTE is thought to result
from repeated multiple head injuries or sub-clinical impacts to
the head [and] manifests initially with emotional and behavioral
problems." The Yaffe statement in the article is exactly what the
objecting players say and exactly what the settlement lawyers do
not want to hear.
Just as the class counsel has in pointing to the Dent case
decision as proof their arguments are correct, the objecting
players offer a recent case as a guide for Judge Brody's decision
-- a ruling by a federal judge in Chicago that a $70 million
settlement for college athletes who suffered concussions is
neither fair nor adequate.
U.S. District Judge John Lee in December wrote, in his ruling,
much of what the objecting NFL players would like to see in
Brody's decision. Most importantly, Judge Lee recognized CTE as a
concussion-related disease that caused early mood and behavior
problems and faulted the settlement for failing to account for
these injuries. He also found that the agreement failed to
consider certain athletes in the same way the NFL fails to
consider NFL Europe veterans and other groups of NFL players.
The college player-union case
The third major sports legal decision that is likely during the
Hernandez trial will be a determination by the National Labor
Relations Board in Washington about whether college athletes are
employees of the school who can form a union and bargain for
benefits.
The five board members are reviewing a ruling made by their
regional director in Chicago that Northwestern football players
are employees who work long hours throughout the year under close
supervision of coaches and producing enormous revenues for the
university The process began a year ago, when star quarterback
Kain Colter called head coach Pat Fitzgerald to tell him that 80
of 85 scholarship players had signed cards asking the NLRB for the
authority to form a union.
The NLRB's consideration of unions for college athletes has
provoked an enormous response from all 17 private universities
that would be affected by the ruling (including a brief from
Baylor president Kenneth Starr), from political leaders, from the
Big Ten conference, and from the NCAA. Nearly two dozen briefs
have been filed by these interested groups in addition extensive
arguments from the players and Northwestern.
In its decision, the board must answer some questions whose
answers could change the topography of college sports:
-- Does football enhance education or interfere with education?
-- Are football players employees or students?
-- Is a scholarship a grant for payment of specific educational
expenses or payment for practices and performances as a football
player?
-- Can the rules that govern the adversarial relationship
between management and labor be applied to an academic world that
is supposed to nurture excellence?
-- Do football players have a right to bargain over their
practices and study conditions even though it is philosophically
disagreeable to the university and is adverse to the economic
interests of the university?
-- Should the board decline to rule in the case as it did in
similar requests for union representation in the world of horse
racing and dog racing?
The attorneys for the players and the NCAA summarized their
positions eloquently:
Players: "Collective bargaining by college players does not
threaten the groves of academe. Classes and research will remain
unchanged. What will change is what must change: the system under
which football businesses operated by universities like
Northwestern make multimillion-dollar profits from the work of
players who are not allowed to bargain over protections against
head trauma, or improvements in insurance and other benefits, or
anything else."
NCAA: "When parents take the long, quiet ride home after saying
goodbye the first semester, they want to feel confident that the
college or university is working diligently to create the most
rewarding educational experience possible. The feeling is as true
for the parents of a student-athlete as parents of any other
student. University leaders have determined that converting
student-athletes into paid professionals -- injecting a different
structure and a different set of motivations for attending college
-- would destroy their ability to provide a rewarding educational
experience for these students and their classmates."
It's going to be an exciting couple of months in the sports
industry. As the Hernandez trial continues and a jury reviews the
evidence and decides the fate of a young man who could have been
one of the greats, a couple of federal judges and a labor board
will review the evidence before them and make their own dramatic
decisions. Are NFL players entitled to $3 billion in collusion
damages? Is the concussion settlement fair to thousands of the
league's retired players? Is there role for unions in college
sports?
NAT'L HOCKEY: Antitrust Suit Over MLB Blackouts Can Go Ahead
------------------------------------------------------------
Al Yellon, writing for SB Nation, reports that proceeding through
the court system is a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by MLB
and NHL fans.
Last August, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin issued a
surprising decision in a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by
fans of Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League upset
at the high cost of out-of-market games on television and digital
blackouts for in-market games. She rejected defendants' summary
judgment motion and also decided that MLB's nearly century-old
antitrust exemption doesn't apply to television broadcasting
rights.
Aghast, MLB asked the judge for permission for an interlocutory
appeal -- one before trial -- and when she refused, the league
sought a writ of mandamus to get the 2nd Circuit's permission for
an appeal anyway. The league seemed to be bolstered by a
favorable outcome on January 15 at the 9th Circuit that
interpreted its antitrust exemption with wide scope.
But on Jan. 28, the 2nd Circuit came out with its order to deny
MLB a chance to immediately appeal because it hadn't "demonstrated
that exceptional circumstances warrant the requested relief."
At the district court level in New York, proceedings have
continued and both sides are gearing up for a hearing this month
over whether the judge should certify a class action. She
rejected defendants' summary judgment motion and also decided that
MLB's nearly century-old antitrust exemption doesn't apply to
television broadcasting rights. While the judge decided not to
give the leagues and TV companies a pre-trial victory in the
lawsuit, the plaintiffs still have work ahead of them. In the
August ruling, the judge wrote, "It is not immediately clear
whether the restrictions help or harm competitive balance
overall."
NEW JERSEY: SC Raises Standards for Sexual Harassment Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the New Jersey Supreme Court on Feb. 11 adopted higher standards
for plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases to meet if they hope to
have their employers held vicariously liable for supervisors'
conduct.
In a 5-2 ruling in Aguas v. New Jersey, the court said it will
allow employers to take advantage of the affirmative defenses
established in the 1998 U.S. Supreme Court cases Burlington
Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. Boca Raton.
Justice Anne Patterson, writing for the majority, said there can
be an affirmative defense if the employer "exercised reasonable
care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing
behavior" and if the plaintiff "unreasonably failed to take
advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided
by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise."
The ruling "furthers the [Law Against Discrimination's] purpose of
eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace by motivating
employers to maintain effective antiharassment policies, and by
encouraging employees to take prompt action against harassing
supervisors in accordance with those policies," Justice Patterson
said. "The affirmative defense is consonant with this court's
prior jurisprudence and advances the legislative goal of the LAD."
Justice Barry Albin, in a dissent joined by Chief Justice
Stuart Rabner, strongly disagreed with the majority's reasoning.
"The majority opinion turns back the clock for employees
victimized by sexual harassment in the workplace and gives greater
protection to supervisors who abuse their authority to create a
hostile work environment," he said.
The case involves a corrections officer, Ilda Aguas, who alleges
that she was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisors at
the Edna Mahan Correctional Center for Women in Union Township,
Hunterdon County, N.J., according to the Supreme Court's opinion.
She verbally complained about the alleged harassment but refused
to supply a written complaint, the opinion said. Her case was
dismissed on summary judgment and the Department of Corrections,
after an internal investigation, found her allegations to be
without merit.
Reaction to the court's ruling was mixed.
"We are absolutely thrilled," said Mark Saloman, who argued on
behalf of amicus Employers Association of New Jersey. "We had
urged the court to adopt the Faragher-Ellerth standard.
"After 16-plus years of dancing around the issue, the court came
down squarely in favor of the Faragher-Ellerth defense," said
Mr. Saloman, of the Berkeley Heights, N.J., office of Ford &
Harrison. "This is a positive development for employers in New
Jersey."
But Claudia Reis, the president of the National Employment Lawyers
Association of New Jersey, which also participated as amicus,
called it "a sad day for New Jersey employees."
"The LAD was supposed to provide greater protections to employees
than federal laws and courts," Mr. Reis, of Lenzo & Reis in
Morristown, N.J., said, adding, "The court decided protecting
businesses is more important than the public policy of eliminating
sexual harassment in the workplace. The court did not just turn
back the clock on employees, it turned its back against employees
with the retrenchment of two decades of jurisprudence."
Mr. Reis was referring to the court's seminal 1993 ruling in
Lehmann v. Toys R Us, where it ruled that employees could be held
vicariously liable if supervisors are found to have sexually
harassed their underlings and created a hostile work environment.
Thaddeus Mikulski Jr., a Pennington, N.J., solo who argued on
behalf of NERA-NJ, agreed with Reis.
"Justice Albin correctly notes that the court has changed the law
under which hostile work environment claims have been tried for
many years," Mr. Mikulski said. "The decision is surprising as
the question certified for review and the questions posed at oral
argument did not suggest the court was considering a radical
change in the law."
"Many sexual harassment victims who reasonably fear retaliation
will now have no redress for managerial harassment," he said.
Patterson said the court in Lehmann discussed, but did not rule
on, the impact of an antiharassment policy an employer had in
place when determining whether the employer could be held
vicariously liable.
Patterson said the concept of allowing for the use of the
affirmative defenses of having a policy in place and requiring
plaintiffs complaining of harassment to avail themselves of the
remedies in those policies goes back to the U.S. Supreme Court's
1986 ruling in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. There, she said,
the court refused to adopt a strict liability standard for
employers.
She also noted that the New Jersey Supreme Court, in its 1999
ruling in Cavuoti v. New Jersey Transit, said an antiharassment
policy was a "significant factor" to take into consideration.
And, she said, the court in 2002, in Gaines v. Bellino, "expressly
confirmed the availability of an affirmative defense to vicarious
liability based on an effective policy against sexual harassment."
Patterson said the majority disagreed with the dissent's claim
that the ruling will allow employers to "hide behind a paper
antidiscrimination policy."
"So that the dissent's description of our opinion does not confuse
employers, employees, counsel or trial courts with respect to this
pivotal issue, we restate: An employer that implements an
ineffectual antiharassment policy, or fails to enforce its policy,
may not assert the affirmative defense," Justice Patterson said.
Albin, in his dissent, said the majority's ruling "tears down the
central pillar" of Lehmann.
"Lehmann allowed no quarter for supervisory sexual harassment and
provided for no affirmative defense for the employer," he said.
"We said so in clear, unmistakable terms, leaving no doubt that
under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination . . . the state's
workers had safeguards not present under federal law."
Ms. Aguas, who joined the DOC in 2004, alleged that her direct
supervisor both physically and verbally sexually harassed her, and
that another higher-ranking officer made inappropriate remarks to
her, according to the opinion.
She discussed the situation with the captain and acting chief at
the prison, and with the assistant administrator, the opinion
said. Ms. Aguas refused, however, to complain in writing because
she said she feared retaliation. The DOC's Equal Employment
Division began an investigation on March 8, 2010, and Ms. Aguas
filed her lawsuit two days later.
The EED concluded in April 2010 that Ms. Aguas' allegations were
groundless.
Hunterdon County Superior Court Judge Peter Buchsbaum dismissed
the case on summary judgment, basing his ruling in part on the
fact that the DOC had a detailed antiharassment policy in place
and that Ms. Aguas refused to avail herself of it.
The Appellate Division affirmed, but said it was doing so because
the harassment stopped after Ms. Aguas complained. The Supreme
Court remanded the case back to the trial court so the state could
use the new defense.
Ms. Aguas' attorney, Paul Castronovo -- paul@law-cm.com -- said
the ruling is a win for Ms. Aguas since her complaint has been
reinstated.
Mr. Castronovo, of Castronovo & McKinney in Morristown, N.J., said
the court's decision to adopt the Faragher-Ellerth defense is not
surprising.
"Every employment law attorney I know, plaintiff and defendant,
has been using Ellerth-Faragher since 2002," when Gaines was
decided, he said.
Leland Moore, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, which
represented the DOC, issued a statement after the ruling.
"The Supreme Court chose to adopt for New Jersey the same
analysis, concerning the impact of an employer's antiharassment
policy, adopted by the United States Supreme Court to federal
law," he said. "Under this framework, which is fair to employers
and employees alike, both are motivated to take appropriate
proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment."
NO PLACE: "Rolling" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boggie Rolling, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. No Place Like Home, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02106 (W.D. Tenn.,
February 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
No Place Like Home, Inc. provides healthcare services for
individuals who may suffer from chronic illness and are in need of
help with daily medical needs in the home.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 777
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 718-2087
Facsimile: (601) 862-398
E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com
OCLARO INC: Final Approval of "Westley" Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 27, 2014, that the court gave its
final approval to the settlement in the class action filed by
Curtis and Charlotte Westley.
The Company said, "On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley
filed a purported class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, against us
and certain of our officers and directors. The Court subsequently
appointed the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund ("Pension Fund")
as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On April 26, 2012, the
Pension Fund filed a second amended complaint, captioned as
Westley v. Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf
of persons who purchased our common stock between May 6 and
October 28, 2010, alleging that we and certain of our officers and
directors issued materially false and misleading statements during
this time period regarding our current business and financial
condition, including projections for demand for our products, as
well as our revenues, earnings, and gross margins, for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well as the full fiscal year. The
complaint alleged violations of section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as
well as section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The
complaint sought damages and costs of an unspecified amount."
"On September 21, 2012, the Court dismissed the second amended
complaint with leave to amend. After the Pension Fund moved for
reconsideration, on January 10, 2013, the Court allowed plaintiffs
to take discovery regarding statements made in May and June 2010.
On March 1, 2013 the Pension Fund filed a third amended complaint,
attempting to cure pleading deficiencies with regard to statements
allegedly made in July and August 2010.
"On April 1, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint with respect to the statements made in July and August
2010. On May 30, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint's claims based on statements made in July
and August 2010. Although discovery has commenced, no trial was
ever scheduled in this action.
"On June 10, 2011, a purported shareholder, Stanley Moskal, filed
a purported derivative action in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, against us, as nominal
defendant, and certain of our current and former officers and
directors, as defendants. The case is styled Moskal v. Couder, No.
1:11 CV 202880 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct., filed June 10,
2011). Four other purported shareholders, Matteo Guindani,
Jermaine Coney, Jefferson Braman and Toby Aguilar, separately
filed substantially similar lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 27, June 28,
July 7 and July 26, 2011, respectively. By Order dated September
14, 2011, the Guindani, Coney, and Braman actions were
consolidated under In re Oclaro, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead
Case No. 11 Civ. 3176 EMC. On October 5, 2011, the Aguilar action
was voluntarily dismissed. Each remaining purported derivative
complaint alleged that Oclaro has been, or will be, damaged by the
actions alleged in the Westley complaint, and the litigation of
the Westley action, and any damages or settlement paid in the
Westley action.
"Each purported derivative complaint alleged counts for breaches
of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment. Each purported
derivative complaint sought damages and costs of an unspecified
amount, as well as injunctive relief.
"By Order dated March 6, 2012, the parties in the Moskal action
agreed that defendants shall not be required to respond to the
original complaint. By Order dated February 27, 2013, the parties
in the Moskal action agreed that plaintiff would serve an amended
complaint no later than 30 days after the Court in the Westley
action rules on defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint in the Westley action and the stay of discovery would
remain in effect until further order of the Court or agreement by
the parties, provided, however, that they obtain discovery
produced in the Westley Action.
"By Order dated March 12, 2013, the parties to In re Oclaro, Inc.
Derivative Litigation agreed to stay all proceedings until such
time as (a) the defendants file an answer to any complaint in the
Westley action; or (b) the Westley action is dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice, provided, however, that they obtain
discovery produced in the Westley Action. No trial has been
scheduled in any of these actions.
"On September 3, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the Westley,
Moskal, and In re Oclaro Derivative matters for a total of $3.95
million, plus certain corporate governance changes. The money was
paid entirely by our directors and officers liability insurance
carriers. The fees awarded to the plaintiffs in these actions, or
their respective counsel, were included in this amount.
"By Order dated August 13, 2014, the Court in the Westley matter
gave its final approval to the settlement. By Order dated
September 19, 2014, the Court in the In re Oclaro, Inc. Derivative
Litigation gave its final approval to the settlement, which then
became effective on December 1, 2014. By Order dated October 1,
2014, the Court approved the voluntary dismissal of the Moskal
matter, terminating the state court derivative matters."
OFFICEMAX NORTH: ND Cal. Judge Awards $200K in Attorneys' Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' renewed
motion in the case NANCY DARDARIAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-00947-YGR
(N.D. Cal.)
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging violations of
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, Civil Code
Sections 1747.08 (Song-Beverly Credit Card Act), by OfficeMax.
OfficeMax previously requested and recorded customer credit card
numbers and personal identification information, namely ZIP codes,
at the point of sale. The parties eventually entered into a
settlement agreement. In the process of reaching that agreement,
they did not negotiate the amount of attorneys' fees and costs
until after the other material terms of the settlement had been
reached.
The Court ultimately approved a settlement that would provide $5
and $10 "Merchandise Vouchers" to class members and others. The
parties agreed to a floor of $200,000.00 and a ceiling of
$500,000.00 in attorneys' fees and costs, to be determined by the
court after the conclusion of the voucher redemption period. The
parties agreed not to appeal an award falling within that range
and for the fees to be paid by OfficeMax within 10 business days
of the Court's Order. No class members objected to the proposed
settlement, including the fee range.
Vouchers with a face value of more than $600,000 in the aggregate
were distributed. Ultimately, by the conclusion of the redemption
period, only 579 of the $10 vouchers and 6,846 of the $5 vouchers
had been redeemed, with a total value of $40,020.
Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for an award of attorneys'
fees and costs, seeking a total of $500,000 for prosecuting and
settling the instant action. Defendant OfficeMax North America,
Inc. opposes the motion only to the extent that plaintiffs seek
more than $200,000 in fees and costs.
Judge Rogers granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs'
renewed motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Defendant shall pay
class counsel $200,000 in attorneys' fees and costs in the manner
contemplated by the settlement agreement.
A copy of Judge Rogers order dated December 30, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/wnld15from Leagle.com.
Nancy Dardarian, Plaintiff, represented by Chad A. Saunders --
csaunders@kraloweclaw.com -- at The Kralowec Law Group; H. Tim
Hoffman -- Arthur William Lazear -- arthur@lazearmack.com -- at
Lazear Mack; Eric Barba -- at Hoffman Libenson Saunders & Barba;
Gene J. Stonebarger -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- at
Stonebarger Law, APC
Nathan Thoms, Plaintiff, represented by Richard David Lambert --
rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com -- Gene J. Stonebarger --
gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- at Stonebarger Law, APC
Officemax North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elham
Marder -- Jeffrey Daymon Neumeyer -- at OfficeMax Incorporated;
Giovanna A. Ferrari -- gferrari@seyfarth.com -- Michael J. Burns
-- mburns@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP
OTTAWA: Sick Mom Class Action Defense Costs Reach $1.3 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government has spent more than $1.3-million in legal
fees to prevent new mothers who fell seriously ill while on
maternity leave from collecting disability benefits in addition to
the employment insurance that is paid to new parents.
A class action lawsuit was launched in Federal Court in 2012 by
two Calgary women on behalf of an estimated tens of thousands of
new mothers who were denied the EI disability benefits or
dissuaded from applying for them. It is seeking more than $450-
million in compensation.
Employment insurance premiums and benefits from 2005-14
To date, there have been just four days of hearings on preliminary
matters -- one to deal with a legal issue raised by the
government, and three spent in arguments about whether the case
can be certified as a class action.
But, by Jan. 26, the government had spent $1,333,413.95 on the
work of its own lawyers to prevent the women from being able to
claim both benefits, the Employment and Social Development
department said in response to written questions from Liberal MP
Rodger Cuzner.
"When you are spending that kind of money battling a group of sick
mothers for a benefit that they rightfully deserve, obviously most
Canadians would question the wisdom in that," Mr. Cuzner said.
The federal employment insurance plan pays new parents as much as
50 weeks worth of benefits after the birth of a baby. It also
pays as much as 15 weeks worth of benefits to someone with a
sufficiently serious illness or injury.
Under a Liberal government, the Employment Insurance Act was
amended in 2002 with the intention of allowing women who are
disabled by illness or injury while receiving parental benefits to
halt the parental benefits, collect the sickness benefits to which
they are entitled, and then to be paid the remainder of the
parental benefits once they have recovered.
But bureaucrats continued to refuse both benefits to women who
were in that situation because of a clause that says disability
benefits are available only to people who would otherwise be
available for work. Mothers on maternity leave are not considered
to be available to work because they are taking care of their
babies.
After one new mother obtained a ruling from an EI tribunal that
she should be paid both the disability and the parental benefits,
the Conservative government rewrote the law in 2013 to remove the
clause about being available for work. Government officials
estimated at that time that the change would affect as many as
6,000 Canadian families every year.
Ottawa also quietly paid benefits to an estimated 350 women who
had been denied the disability benefits while on maternity leave
and who were still in the process of appealing those denials when
the law was changed.
But thousands of other women who had exhausted their appeals or
simply dropped their cases have never been compensated.
A spokesman for the Employment and Social Development department
said in an e-mail on Jan. 30 that the government sympathizes with
parents who find themselves in these types of situations.
"As this issue is currently before the courts," he said, "it would
be inappropriate to comment on the specifics of the case."
It is unclear how long the employment insurance case will go on,
or how much more it will cost Canadian taxpayers.
PDC ENERGY: "Baker" Suit Sent Back to Colorado State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Raymond P. Moore of the District of Colorado ruled
on the parties' motion in the case BUDDY BAKER, as Trustee for the
Buddy Wayne Baker Revocable Trust, on behalf of himself and a
class of similarly situated royalty owners, Plaintiff, v. PDC
ENERGY, INC., and DCP MIDSTREAM, L.P., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-CV-02537-RM-MJW (D. Colo.)
Plaintiff Buddy Baker filed an action in the District Court of the
City and County of Denver, Second Judicial District for the State
of Colorado against PDC Energy, Inc. and DCP Midstream. Plaintiff
brings two claims for damages against PDC Energy: (1) breach of
contract and (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing and two claims against Defendant DCP Midstream, L.P.:
(1) breach of contract and (2) unjust enrichment. Against both
Defendants, plaintiff brings a claim for declaratory judgment.
Plaintiff purports to bring these claims on behalf of himself and
a class of similarly situated royalty owners pursuant to Rule 23
of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, PDC Energy removed the case to
the federal district court on the basis that the action allegedly
could have been filed originally in the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d), as amended by the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, 1711-1715.
PDC Energy removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2)(A) because it argued that the federal district court
has jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000 in the aggregate; and (2) the parties are diverse. PDC
Energy argued that the plaintiff is a citizen of Colorado and
defendant DCP Midstream is a citizen of Delaware.
Baker moved to remand the matter and argued that DCP Midstream is
a citizen of both Delaware and Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(10), and thus PDC Energy failed to demonstrate
that the parties are diverse. Baker further argued that PDC Energy
cannot amend its notice of removal and that the court, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(B), must decline to exercise
jurisdiction under CAFA because two-thirds or more of the members
of proposed class and the primary defendants are citizens of the
State in which the action was originally filed. Finally, Baker
sought attorneys' fees and costs incurred as a result of PDC
Energy's improper removal.
On September 26, 2014, PDC Energy moved to amend its notice of
removal.
Judge Moore denied PDC Energy's motion to amend its notice of
removal and granted in part, plaintiff's motion for remand.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), Judge Moore remands the
case to the District Court for the City and County of Denver,
Colorado, where it was originally filed as Case Number 2014 CV
33134, and denied plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and
costs.
A copy of Judge Moore's order dated December 30, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/YJkGG6from Leagle.com.
Buddy Baker, Plaintiff, represented by:
George A. Barton
Robert G. Harken
GEORGE A. BARTON, P.C.
4435 Main Street, Suite 920
One Main Plaza
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: 816-300-6250
Facsimile: 816-300-6259
PDC Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine A. Nelson
-- katherine.nelson@hoganlovells.com -- Andrew Christopher Lillie
-- andrew.lillie@hoganlovells.com -- Elizabeth Helen Titus --
elizabeth.titus@hoganlovells.com -- Jessica Adler Black Livingston
-- jessica.livingston@hoganlovells.com -- Scot William Anderson --
scot.anderson@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US, LLP
DCP Midstream, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jess Alexander
Dance -- JDance@perkinscoie.com -- Michael Alex Sink --
MSink@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie LLP
PDL BIOPHARMA: Stipulation Dismissing "Feeley" Case Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Lee A. Hampe filed a putative class action complaint on September
18, 2014, asserting claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against PDL Biopharma, Inc.
(PDL) and certain of its officers and directors, entitled Hampe v.
PDL Biopharma, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-CV-05126-APG.
On October 20, 2014, Rene A. Feeley and Brian Feeley filed a
shareholder derivative complaint based on similar facts and
allegations against Defendants Jody Lindell, John McLauglin, Paul
Sandman, Harold Selick, Ph.D., David W. Gryska, and Nominal
Defendant PDL;
By Stipulation and Order dated January 5, 2015, the Court stayed
the Derivative Action pending the disposition of a motion to
dismiss the Securities Class Action. The Stipulation and Order
acknowledged that "dismissal of the Securities Class Action, if
affirmed on appeal, would moot some, if not all, of the claims in
the Derivative Action."
By Order dated February 2, 2015, the Securities Class Action was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
In light of the dismissal of the Securities Class Action,
Plaintiffs wish to voluntarily dismiss the Derivative Action
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel has
received or will receive any consideration for dismissing this
action from Defendants or otherwise.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1(c) provides that the Court's approval is
necessary to voluntarily dismiss a derivative action.
Accordingly, District Judge Andrew P. Gordon signed on February
17, 2015, the parties' stipulation and order dismissing without
prejudice, the derivative action captioned RENE A. FEELEY AND
BRIAN FEELEY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JODY LINDELL, JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, PAUL
SANDMAN, HAROLD SELICK, PH.D., DAVID W. GRYSKA, Defendants, and
PDL BIOPHARMA, INC. Nominal Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01738-APG-
GWF, (D. Nev.).
The parties mutually agree not to seek or assert any claim against
the other or their counsel for fees, expenses, costs, sanctions,
including any claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, in connection with
the filing, prosecution, defense or dismissal or this action
and/or any other claim that the action was brought or defended in
bad faith.
A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/M57Epgfrom Leagle.com.
J. RANDALL JONES -- r.jones@kempjones.com -- ESQ., KEMP, JONES &
COULTHARD, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Additional counsel on signature page.
Rew R. Goodenow -- rgoodenow@parsonsbehle.com -- PARSONS BEHLE &
LATIMER, Reno, NV.
Stuart J. Baskin -- sbaskin@shearman.com -- Brian H. Polovoy --
bpolovoy@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, New York, NY,
Attorneys for Defendants.
Willie C. Briscoe -- wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com -- THE BRISCOE
LAW FIRM, Dallas, TX.
Patrick W. Powers -- patrick@powerstaylor.com -- Meredith L.
Black-Mathews POWERS TAYLOR LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
PELOZA CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Sanchez-Saavedra, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Peloza Construction Co., Inc. and
David M. Peloza, Case No. 1:15-cv-01410 (N.D. Ill., February 15,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.
The Defendants own and operate a construction company doing
business within the State of Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Erik Stevens, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (312) 307-0766
E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com
PERRIGO COMPANY: Eltroxin Cases in Israel in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 27, 2014, that several lawsuits
filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin are in the
early stages.
During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers
who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health
care system in Israel.
The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally alleged
that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result,
claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a)
purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.
All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to
determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On
July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and
ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into
one application. On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to
certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for
the claimants. Generally, the allegations in the consolidated
motion are the same as those set forth in the individual motions;
however, the consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the
reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent. Several hearings on whether
or not to certify the consolidated application took place in
December 2013 and January 2014. As this matter is in its early
stages, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the
outcome or the liability, if any, associated with these claims.
PERRIGO COMPANY: Co-Defendant in Tysabri Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 27, 2014, that the Company is a
co-defendant in Tysabri(R) product liability lawsuits.
The Company and collaborator Biogen are co-defendants in product
liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive
Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy ("PML"), a serious brain infection,
and serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in
patients taking Tysabri(R). The Company and Biogen will each be
responsible for 50% of losses and expenses arising out of any
Tysabri(R) product liability claims. While these lawsuits will be
vigorously defended, management cannot predict how these cases
will be resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits
could result in substantial judgments against the Company.
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Ohio Pension Fund Wants to Lead Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Pelzer, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that an Ohio
pension fund is seeking to help lead a class-action lawsuit
against a Brazilian oil and gas company after reported fraud there
caused a state pension fund to lose more than $50 million.
The Ohio Public Employee Retirement System, or OPERS, is one of
three state pension funds that asked a federal court on Feb. 6 to
head up the federal lawsuit against Petroleo Brasileiro SA,
according to Attorney General Mike DeWine's office.
The semi-public company, known as Petrobras, has been accused of
inflating construction costs in exchange for kickbacks,
Mr. DeWine's office said in a news release.
OPERS and other shareholders saw their Petrobras stock value
plummet after Brazilian prosecutors announced the corruption
allegations, according to the release.
Being named as a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit would give OPERS
more control over the direction of the case, said DeWine spokesman
Dan Tierney.
Besides OPERS, pension funds in Hawaii and Idaho would also be
named lead plaintiffs, according to a motion filed in U.S.
District Court in New York City, the attorney general's office
said.
"The allegations against Petrobras are so egregious we have no
choice but to take action on behalf of Ohio's public employees and
retirees," Mr. DeWine said in a statement.
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Sued in New York Over Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Menachem M. Laine, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00795 (E.D.N.Y., February 16, 2015) is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
R.J. REYNOLDS: Wants Retirement Plan Class Action Decertified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is requesting that a U.S. District Court
judge decertify a class-action lawsuit involving its former
affiliation with Nabisco that potentially affects 3,549 current
and former employees.
Richard Tatum of Winston-Salem filed a lawsuit in May 2002 in U.S.
District Court in Greensboro.
District Court Judge Carlton Tilley Jr. dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice in March 2013, meaning the case could not be re-filed
later.
However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the ruling in
August by a 2-1 vote, remanding the case "for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion." The appeal did not address
decertification.
At its essence, the lawsuit is about whether the fiduciaries of
the Reynolds employee retirement plan "undertook the appropriate
investigation into the prudence of removing the Nabisco funds from
the tobacco plan" and whether "prudence would have compelled a
fiduciary to maintain the Nabisco funds as frozen funds in the
plan."
Judge Tilley ruled that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc.
reached an appropriate decision to eliminate the Nabisco Funds
from its 401(k) plan in January 2000.
Reynolds said in its Jan. 20 petition that "the law governing
class-action certification has undergone a significant change"
since September 2008, citing that the criteria for class action
status "are much stricter now."
As a result, Reynolds says "the class as certified no longer
satisfies" the rules governing class-action lawsuits. It cited as
examples that 1,305 of the 3,549 potential plaintiffs "have
executed broad releases of all claims against RJR" and that nearly
half of the potential plaintiffs voluntarily sold their Nabisco
holdings before January 2000.
Tatum attorney Robert Elliot, of Elliot Pishko Morgan in Winston-
Salem, said in 2008 that potential damages could have reached into
"the multimillions of dollars."
"It has been our contention all along that no prudent person
would've sold the Nabisco stocks at that point in time."
Mr. Elliot could not be reached for comment on the Reynolds
petition.
It is Reynolds' fourth attempt at having the lawsuit decertified,
following requests in January 2009 and March 2011 and December
2011.
Judge Tilley determined Reynolds breached its duty to properly
investigate the investment decision to eliminate the Nabisco funds
from the tobacco plan, including not discussing the option of
allowing the Nabisco stock to remain frozen indefinitely. That
decision, according to the appellate judges, "caused a substantial
loss to the plan," in part because the plan documents did not
mandate divestment of the Nabisco funds.
However, Judge Tilley said plaintiffs also had to prove Reynolds'
trustee for the 401(k) "knew more than they did" in making the
decision that caused financial loss to the plaintiffs. Judge
Tilley ruled that Reynolds had met its burden of proof because its
decision to eliminate the Nabisco funds was "one which a
reasonable and prudent fiduciary could have made after performing
such an investigation."
The appellate judges agreed with Judge Tilley's ruling that
Reynolds "breached its duty of procedural prudence and so carries
the burden of proof on causation." The appellate judges said
Judge Tilley "failed to apply the correct legal standard in
assessing Reynolds' liability; we must reverse its judgment."
The appellate judges said that if the District Court determines
that a fiduciary who conducted a proper investigation would have
reached the same decision, "Reynolds will escape all monetary
liability, notwithstanding its procedural imprudence."
"But if the court concludes to the contrary, then the law requires
that Reynolds be held monetarily liable for the plan's loss."
RAINERI CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Emily" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendelle Emily, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Raineri Construction, LLC, Anthony Raineri & Ashley
Raineri, Case No. 4:15-cv-00282 (E.D. Mo., February 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Raineri Construction, LLC is a Missouri limited liability company
which maintains its principal place of business within the City of
St. Louis, Missouri and transacts a general contracting business.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 997-9150
Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com
RCS CAPITAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 30 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against RCS Capital Corporation and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
14-cv-10136, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased RCS Capital securities between February 12,
2014 and October 31, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased RCS Capital securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 27, 2015 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and future acquisition prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc.'s ("ARCP") financial statements were materially
false and misleading as a result of a massive accounting scandal
perpetrated and concealed by senior management, including Nicholas
Schorsch; (2) RCS Capital's announced acquisition of Cole Capital
from ARCP was at serious risk due to the fraud being perpetrated
at ARCP; (3) RCS Capital's revenue stream from its relationship
with ARCP was in jeopardy as a result of the accounting scandal at
ARCP; and as a result of the foregoing, (4) RCS Capital's public
statements pertaining to its financial position as well as the
Cole Capital acquisition were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On October 29, 2014, ARCP disclosed that its Audit Committee had
determined that an "error" in accounting for adjusted funds from
operations ("AFFO") had previously been identified within the
ARCO, but was intentionally not corrected, and other AFFO and
financial statement errors were intentionally made, resulting in
an overstatement of AFFO and an understatement of the company's
net loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2014. ARCP
also announced that the previously issued financial statements and
other financial information contained in the Company's annual
report for the year ended 2013, quarterly reports for the periods
ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, and the company's earnings
releases and other financial communications for these periods,
should no longer be relied upon. Concurrently with this
disclosure, ARCP announced the resignation of its Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, both of whom had key roles
in preparing the allegedly fraudulent financial statements.
Moreover, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation has opened a criminal investigation into ARCP.
The SEC also plans to open an inquiry into the company, according
to a person familiar with the situation.
As a result of the accounting scandal revealed at ARCP, RCS
Capital announced on November 3, 2014 that it has terminated the
previously disclosed definitive agreement to acquire Cole Capital
from ARCP. On this news, shares of RCS Capital fell $2.72, or
more than 16%, on extremely heavy volume, to close at $13.69 on
November 3, 2014.
On November 7, 2014, after the close of trading, it was reported
on Thinkadvisor.com that Massachusetts regulator William Galvin
commenced an investigation of RCS Capital relating to the
accounting errors disclosed at ARCP. As a result of this news,
shares of RCS Capital fell $0.65, or more than 5.7%, on heavy
volume, to close at $10.67 on November 10, 2014.
On December 15, 2014, ARCP issued a press release announcing the
resignation of Schorsch as its executive chairman and director.
As a result of this news, shares of RCS Capital fell $1.35, or
more than 11%, on heavy volume, to close at $10.46, on December
15, 2014.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.
ROSINELLA MARKET: Faces "Luperon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Luperon and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Rosinella Market, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20567 (S.D.
Fla., February 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.
Rosinella Market, Inc. owns and operates an Italian restaurant in
Miami, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David L. Markel, Esq.
THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 458-1282
Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com
RWL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Trentman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Trentman, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated
v. RWL Communications, Inc. & RWL Communications SE, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00089 (M.D. Fla., February 11, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants conduct cable installation work in Florida and
Alabama.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave, PO Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
SCARSDALE PHYSICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen F. Yacovone, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated individuals v. Scarsdale Physical Therapy and Marco
Caruso, Case No. 7:15-cv-01015 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a rehabilitation center in
Scarsdale, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corey Scott Stark, Esq.
THE DWECK LAW FIRM, LLP
75 Rockefeller Plaza, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 687-8200
Facsimile: (212) 697-2521
E-mail: cstark@dwecklaw.com
SPRINT CORPORATION: Deal Reached in "Bennett" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the
case Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter, and the settlement amount is
expected to be substantially paid by the Company's insurers.
In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its
former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff sought class
action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock
from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008.
On January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
"Subsequently, our motion to certify the January 6, 2011 order for
an interlocutory appeal was denied. On March 27, 2014, the court
certified a class including bondholders as well as stockholders,"
the Company said.
"On April 11, 2014, we filed a petition to appeal that
certification order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The
petition was denied on May 23, 2014. After mediation, the parties
have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter, and
the settlement amount is expected to be substantially paid by the
Company's insurers. The proposed settlement is subject to court
approval. We do not expect the resolution of this matter to have a
material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations."
SPRINT CORPORATION: Discovery Has Begun in Stockholders' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the suit filed by stockholders of Clearwire
Corporation, was denied and discovery has begun.
Sprint Communications, Inc. is a defendant in a complaint filed by
stockholders of Clearwire Corporation, asserting claims for breach
of fiduciary duty by Sprint Communications, and related claims and
otherwise challenging the Clearwire Acquisition. ACP Master, LTD,
et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., was filed April 26, 2013 in
Chancery Court in Delaware.
"Our motion to dismiss the suit was denied and discovery has
begun," the Company said.
The plaintiffs in the ACP Master, LTD suit have also filed suit
requesting an appraisal of the fair value of their Clearwire
stock, and discovery is proceeding in that case.
"Sprint Communications, Inc. intends to defend the ACP Master, LTD
cases vigorously, and, because they are still in the preliminary
stage, we have not yet determined what effect the lawsuit will
have, if any, on our financial position or results of operations,"
the Company said.
STRATASYS LTD: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 9 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Stratasys Ltd. and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-945, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Stratasys securities between May 9, 2014 and February 2, 2015,
inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Stratasys securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 6, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.
Stratasys manufactures three-dimensional (or "3D") printers and
describes itself as a leading global provider of additive
manufacturing solutions.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants repeatedly issued positive statements
regarding MakerBot and its products. For example, on May 9, 2014,
the Company stated that "MakerBot branded products and services
contributed $20.6 million to first quarter revenue, a 79% increase
over the revenue that MakerBot generated as an independent company
during the first quarter of 2013." The Company also highlighted
that day that it had begun "shipping the new MakerBot Replicator
3D Printer, and announced the availability of the MakerBot
Replicator Mini Compact 3D Printer and MakerBot Replicator Z18 3D
Printer for preorder, with shipping expected before the end of the
second quarter." As the Class Period went on, Stratasys
significantly raised its 2014 financial guidance to $750 to $770
million.
On February 2, 2015, the Company issued a warning that its fourth
quarter fiscal 2014 revenue would miss analysts' expectations,
largely based on problems with its MakerBot unit. The February 2,
2015 announcement revealed that the Company was taking a $100 to
$110 million impairment charge to the goodwill value of the
recently acquired MakerBot, pointing to slower growth of MakerBot
products and services revenue, including "challenges associated
with the introduction and scaling of its new product platform [the
5th Generation Replicator 3D printers and 3D printing ecosystem]
and the Company's rapidly evolving distribution model."
MakerBot's revenue, which makes up 12% of the Company's total
revenue, grew only 7% year-over-year in the fourth quarter, coming
up well below the growth level seen in prior quarters.
Stratasys also announced that revenue for the full year 2014 would
be between $748 million and $750 million, lower than the $764
million analysts had been modeling and below prior guidance of
$750 million to $770 million. Although fourth quarter revenues
increased by 38%, that growth also fell short of analyst
expectations of 49% growth, meaning fourth quarter revenue would
be approximately $214 million, below consensus estimates of $230.8
million. Adjusted earnings per share for 2014 fell short as well,
with the Company reporting EPS of $1.97 to $2.03, versus prior
guidance of $2.21 to $2.31 and consensus estimates of $2.25.
For 2015, the Company announced that it expected adjusted earnings
per share of $2.07 to $2.24, which fell far short of analyst and
market expectations of $2.90. The Company also forecast 2015
revenues of $940 million to $960 million, also short of market
expectations of $1 billion. The reduced forecast implied slower
organic growth.
In response to the Company's unexpected earnings miss, weak
forecast, impairment charge, and newly revealed problems with
MakerBot, the price of Stratasys common stock dropped suddenly.
After closing at $80.08 per share on February 2, 2015, the stock
opened trading at $57.00 per share on February 3, 2015, ultimately
falling $22.72 per share, or 28%, to close at $57.36 per share
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.
SYNGENTA CORP: Class Action Over GMO Corn Continues to Grow
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Sharp, Kat Greene, Kurt Orzeck, Caroline Simson and Alex
Lawson, writing for Law360, report that Syngenta Corp. faced a
growing wave of litigation on Feb. 6 as the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation further combined suits alleging the
company "tainted" the U.S. corn supply with genetically modified
seed before China gave import approval, pushing the total to more
than 270 cases.
The panel's order follows a December announcement to consolidate
in Kansas multiple class actions and lawsuits filed by corn
farmers, grain exporters and others under U.S. District Judge John
W. Lungstrum. Since September, major agriculture companies and
hundreds of farmers have sued the company over the premature
release of its genetically modified corn seed, Viptera corn.
According to plaintiffs in the suit, Syngenta's premature release
of the corn seed cost the U.S. corn market between $1 billion and
$3 billion due to the rejection and resulting seizures of U.S.
containers and cargo ships transporting U.S. corn to China.
Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture authorized the
introduction of the trait in April 2010, by which time the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration had already approved it, the Chinese government did
not sign off until December 2014.
Because U.S. corn is commoditized -- meaning corn from different
farms is mixed together before it's shipped -- the plaintiffs
allege that the small amount from farms that bought the modified
seed condemned whole shipments at the Chinese border as the
country didn't accept Syngenta-modified corn.
China's December decision to greenlight MIR162, genetically
modified trait that gives the plants increased resistance to
certain insects, came nearly five years after Syngenta first
submitted the trait for approval in March 2010. Though the trait
had been approved for cultivation within the U.S., Argentina,
Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Paraguay and Uruguay, China's blockage
of the shipments led to dramatic market uncertainty.
In December, 20 states representing 86 percent of the corn planted
in 2014 joined the class actions over MIR162.
The plaintiffs are represented by William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- of Gray Reed & McGraw PC, Don M. Downing
of Gray Ritter & Graham PC and Scott A. Powell -- scott@hwnn.com
-- of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, among others.
Syngenta is represented by Michael D. Jones --
michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Edwin J. U -- edwin.u@kirkland.com
-- Ragan Naresh and Patrick T. Haney of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The MDL is In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, case number
2591, before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
TD AMERITRADE: To Defend Against "Order Routing" Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend against the Order Routing
Litigation.
Five putative class action complaints have been filed regarding TD
Ameritrade's routing of client orders. The cases are pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et
al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc.; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael
Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald
Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al. The complaints
in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to
provide clients with "best execution" and routed orders to the
market venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints
in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the defendant routed its
clients' non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the
highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive
best execution on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously
include claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of the duty of best execution, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer
Protection Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and
declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief
including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
equitable relief and other relief. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is unable to
predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of
these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if any, that may result.
TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Dismiss Reserve Fund Matters Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the
motions to dismiss the class action related to Reserve Fund
matters remain pending.
During September 2008, The Reserve, an independent mutual fund
company, announced that the net asset value of the Reserve Yield
Plus Fund declined below $1.00 per share. The Yield Plus Fund was
not a money market mutual fund, but its stated objective was to
maintain a net asset value of $1.00 per share. TD Ameritrade,
Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund (now
known as "Yield Plus Fund - In Liquidation"), which is being
liquidated. On July 23, 2010, The Reserve announced that through
that date it had distributed approximately 94.8% of the Yield Plus
Fund assets as of September 15, 2008 and that the Yield Plus Fund
had approximately $39.7 million in total remaining assets. The
Reserve stated that the fund's Board of Trustees has set aside
almost the entire amount of the remaining assets to cover
potential claims, fees and expenses. The Company estimates that TD
Ameritrade, Inc. clients' current positions held in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund amount to approximately 79% of the fund.
On January 27, 2011, TD Ameritrade, Inc. entered into a settlement
with the SEC, agreeing to pay $0.012 per share to all eligible
current or former clients that purchased shares of the Yield Plus
Fund and continued to own those shares. Clients who purchased
Yield Plus Fund shares through independent registered investment
advisors were not eligible for the payment. In February 2011, the
Company paid clients approximately $10 million under the
settlement agreement.
In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund. On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary
damages and equitable relief. On January 19, 2010, the defendants
submitted motions to dismiss the complaint. The motions are
pending.
The Company estimates that its clients' current aggregate
shortfall, based on the original par value of their holdings in
the Yield Plus Fund, less the value of fund distributions to date
and payments to clients under the SEC settlement, is approximately
$36 million. This amount does not take into account any assets
remaining in the fund that may become available for future
distributions.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of the Ross lawsuit, or the potential loss, if
any, that may result. However, management believes the outcome is
not likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.
TIM JUNGBLUT: Retaliated Against Workers Involved in FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Clifford and Tom Utterback v. Tim Jungblut Trucking, Inc.,
and Tim Jungblut, Case No. 1:15-cv-00234-JMS-DKL (S.D. Ind.,
February 16, 2015) alleges that the Defendants have violated
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by retaliating against
the Plaintiffs after their participation in a collective action
under the FLSA -- Steven E. Kayse, et al. v. Tim Jungblut
Trucking, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00429-TAB-TWP.
TJT is an Indiana domestic corporation located in Hamilton,
Indiana. Tim Jungblut is the owner of TJT.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
Christopher S. Wolcott, Esq.
GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
3091 East 98th Street, Suite 280
Indianapolis, IN 46280
Telephone: (317) 706-1100
Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com
chris@gibbongslegalgroup.com
TL CANNON: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Wage-and-Hour Suit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
plaintiffs employment lawyers breathed a collective sigh of relief
on Feb. 10, when a federal appeals court in New York reined in an
expansive view of U.S. Supreme Court precedent that would have
severely hobbled wage-and-hour class actions.
Siding with lawyers at Public Citizen, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit ruled that a lower court wrongly refused to
certify a class of employees claiming that Applebee's franchisee
T.L. Cannon Corp. short-changed them on pay. The decision marks a
loss for T.L. Cannon and its defense lawyers at Littler Mendelson.
In blocking the workers' class action in 2013, U.S. District Judge
Thomas J. McAvoy in Binghamton, N.Y., invoked the Supreme Court's
2013 decision in Comcast v. Behrend, which, he ruled, precluded
class actions when the plaintiffs can't calculate damages on a
classwide basis. The Second Circuit panel, however, found
McAvoy's reading of Comcast far too broad.
In Comcast, the Supreme Court concluded that an antitrust class
action shouldn't have been certified because individual damages
inquiries overwhelmed the common, classwide questions in the case.
On Feb. 10, the Second Circuit clarified that Comcast urges courts
to consider damages issues at the class certification stage, but
it doesn't bar class actions altogether whenever damages are
varied.
"Because we do not read Comcast as precluding class certification
where damages are not capable of measurement on classwide basis,
we reject the district court's sole reason for denying plaintiffs'
motion for class certification," Circuit Judge Christopher Droney
wrote for the three-judge appeals panel.
The ruling comes in one of two closely watched appeals dealing
with the application of Comcast to lawsuits alleging violations of
wage-and-hour laws.
Outside the T.L. Cannon case, the Second Circuit also considered
an appeal from Duane Reade Inc., which faces a lawsuit from
assistant store managers who claim they were stiffed on overtime
pay. In the Duane Reade case, U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken in
Manhattan took a narrower view of Comcast -- he agreed to certify
a class, but left damages to be resolved individually.
With the district courts split, the Second Circuit accepted the
T.L. Cannon and Duane Reade appeals and heard the cases in tandem
in September. Scott Michelman of Public Citizen argued for the
Applebee's employees, while Outten & Golden's Adam Klein argued
for the Duane Reade workers. Littler's Craig Benson --
cbenson@littler.com -- handled arguments for both defendants.
The Second Circuit has now come down in favor of the plaintiffs
lawyers in both appeals. In addition to the T.L. Cannon opinion,
the appellate court issued a summary order on Feb. 10 upholding
Judge Oetken's decision in the Duane Reade case.
Public Citizen's Michelman called the Second Circuit's decision a
significant win for workers.
"Had the lower court's interpretation prevailed, it would have
been virtually impossible to certify most wage-and-hour class
actions -- and consumer class actions," Mr. Michelman said in a
statement.
Littler's Benson wasn't immediately available to comment on
Feb. 10.
TOWERS WATSON: Settlement Reached to Resolve Teck Employees Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a settlement
agreement has been reached to resolve all claims in the class
action by current and former employees of Teck Metals, Ltd.
A class action is currently pending against the Company in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia. On July 14, 2009, James
Weldon, an employee of Teck Metals, Ltd. ("Teck") commenced an
action against Teck and Towers Perrin Inc. (now known as Towers
Watson Canada Inc.). On October 17, 2011, Leonard Bleier, a former
employee of Teck, sued Teck and Towers Perrin. Aside from their
employment status, the allegations in the action commenced by
Bleier (retired from Teck in 2006) are substantively similar in
all material respects to those in the action commenced by Weldon
(employed by Teck at the time the action commenced). Both actions
were brought in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and that
court consolidated the actions on June 21, 2012.
On October 1, 2012, the Company filed a response to the
plaintiffs' consolidated and amended claim denying the legal and
factual basis for the plaintiffs' claim. On December 21, 2012, the
court certified the consolidated case as a class action.
At all times relevant to the plaintiffs' claim, Towers Perrin
acted as the actuarial advisor for Teck's defined benefit pension
plan. According to the plaintiffs' allegations, in 1992 and on
Towers Perrin's advice, Teck offered its non-union, salaried
employees a one-time option to continue participation in Teck's
defined benefit pension plan or to transfer to a newly established
defined contribution plan. The plaintiffs also allege that Towers
Perrin assisted Teck in preparing -- and that Towers Perrin
approved -- informational materials and a computer-based modeling
tool that Teck distributed to eligible employees prior to the
employees electing whether to transfer. Several hundred employees
elected to transfer from the defined benefit pension plan to the
defined contribution plan on January 1, 1993.
The plaintiff class comprises current and former Teck employees
who elected to transfer from the defined benefit pension plan to
the defined contribution plan. As of October 23, 2014, the Company
understands there to be 436 individuals in the class.
The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, allege that Towers Perrin
was professionally negligent and that Teck and Towers Perrin
breached statutory and fiduciary duties and acted deceitfully by
providing incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information to
participants in Teck's defined benefit plan regarding the option
to transfer to the defined contribution plan. Principally, the
plaintiffs allege that the risks of the defined contribution plan
-- including investment risk and annuity risk -- were downplayed,
either negligently or with the specific intent of causing eligible
employees to transfer to the defined contribution plan.
The plaintiffs seek assorted declaratory relief; an injunction
reinstating them and all class members into the defined benefit
plan with full rights and benefits as if they had not transferred;
disgorgement against Teck; damages in the amount necessary to
provide the plaintiffs and all class members with the pension and
other benefits they would have accrued if they had not
transferred; interest as allowed by law; and such further and
other relief as to the court may seem just.
In a settlement agreement dated October 31, 2014, the Company,
plaintiffs, and Teck agreed to resolve all claims in this
litigation. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval.
Based on all of the information to date, the Company believes that
any loss beyond accrued amounts is unlikely.
TOWERS WATSON: TWDE Faces Suit Over Meriter Health Plan
-------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that Towers Watson
Delaware Inc. ("TWDE"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
was served on January 12, 2015, with a Summons and Complaint (the
"Complaint") on behalf of Meriter Health Services, Inc.
("Meriter"), plan sponsor of the Meriter Health Services Employee
Retirement Plan (the "Plan"). The Complaint was filed in
Wisconsin State Court in Dane County.
In the Complaint, among other allegations, it is asserted that
Meriter has a claim against TWDE, and other entities, in respect
of allegedly negligent benefits consulting advice provided to it
by Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. ("TPFC") and Davis,
Conder, Enderle & Sloan, Inc. ("DCES"), including TPFC's
involvement in the Plan design and drafting of the Plan document
in 1987, DCES' Plan review in 2001, and Plan redesign, Plan
amendment and drafting of ERISA section 204(h) notices.
Additionally, Meriter asserts that TPFC and DCES breached an
alleged duty to advise Meriter regarding the competency of
Meriter's then ERISA counsel.
In 2010, a putative class action lawsuit related to the Plan was
filed by Plan participants against Meriter alleging a number of
claims involving ERISA. The lawsuit was settled in 2015 for $82
million. While the Complaint does not include a specific,
quantified demand, it does refer to the $82 million paid out by
Meriter in settlement of the class action, and other damages which
are not specified in the Complaint.
Based on all of the information to date, and given the stage of
the matter, TWDE is currently unable to provide an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss. TWDE disputes the
allegations, and intends to defend the matter vigorously.
TWENTY-FIRST: Defendants Defend "Wilder" Case Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the
defendants in the Wilder Litigation filed their replies to
plaintiffs' opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss.
On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were
issued regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The
News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company,
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks
compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs.
On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel.
Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing
that an amended consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31,
2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31,
2012, which among other things, added as defendants NI Group
Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011
to July 18, 2011. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the
litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014.
Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint, and on April 30,
2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint,
which generally repeats the allegations of the amended
consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to July
8, 2009 to July 18, 2011.
On August 11, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint, and on October 24, 2014,
plaintiffs opposed those motions. On November 21, 2014, defendants
filed their replies to plaintiffs' opposition. The Company's
management believes the claims in the Wilder Litigation are
entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend those
claims.
TYSON FOODS: Faces "Awad" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Farah Awad, Ata Boules, and Nagy Eilia, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Tyson
Fresh Meats, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00130 (M.D. Tenn., February
12, 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 meat production company with its
principle place of business in Arkansas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Scott P. Tift, Esq.
Seth Marcus Hyatt, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Bank of America Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
stift@barrettjohnston.com
shyatt@barrettjohnston.com
UBER TECH: Judge Skeptical on Bid for Quick Pretrial Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge
appeared skeptical on Jan. 30 about Uber's bid for a quick
pretrial ruling that its drivers are contractors and not
employees, a critical question facing Silicon Valley's sharing
economy.
App-based ride service Uber, and smaller rival Lyft, face separate
lawsuits seeking class action status in San Francisco federal
court, brought on behalf of drivers who contend they are employees
and entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gas and
vehicle maintenance. The drivers currently pay those costs
themselves.
A ruling against either company could significantly raise their
costs beyond the lawsuit's scope and force them to pay social
security, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. That
could affect the valuations for other startups that rely on large
networks of individuals to provide rides, clean houses and other
services.
At a court hearing on Jan. 30, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen
said Uber's bid for a pretrial ruling its drivers are contractors
is a "tough argument" to make, given that the drivers serve Uber's
business goals.
"The idea that Uber is simply a software platform, a service
provider and nothing else, I don't find that a very persuasive
argument," Judge Chen said.
Ultimately, a jury might have to decide the issue, he added. The
hearing came a day after a similar one involving Lyft. In that
case, U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria said whether drivers
are employees or contractors is "very difficult" to decide, but
that California law appears to favor the drivers. Judge Chhabria
has not yet ruled.
Uber has raised more than $4 billion from prominent venture
capital firms such as Benchmark and Google Ventures, valuing the
company at $40 billion and making it the most valuable U.S.
startup. Lyft has raised $331 million from Andreessen Horowitz,
Founders Fund and other investors.
The drivers have not yet specified how much money they are seeking
in damages. Drivers argue they should be considered employees
because Uber and Lyft can hire and fire them and require them to
accept a certain percentage of rides, and to pass background
checks.
Uber and Lyft counter that drivers control their own schedules,
are not assigned a territory, and are not supplied with any
equipment apart from an iPhone and a sign.
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Appeal in Shareholder Lawsuits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal in
the shareholder class action lawsuits is ongoing before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On
January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the
plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April
16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
other defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the
court. The appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. There can be no assurance that the Company will
prevail in the appeal proceeding. The Company cannot currently
estimate the possible loss, if any, that it may experience in
connection with this litigation.
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: UTC Fire Faces "Robocalls" Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that UTC Fire &
Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (UTCFS) has been named as a
defendant in numerous putative class actions that were filed on
behalf of purported classes of persons who allege that third-party
entities placed "robocalls" and/or placed calls to numbers listed
on the "Do Not Call Registry" on behalf of UTCFS in contravention
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In each putative
class action suit, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and monetary
damages. Each violation under the TCPA provides for $500 in
statutory damages or up to $1,500 for any willful violation.
"We assert that the third-party entities that initiated the calls
were not acting on our behalf in making any such calls. We believe
that UTCFS has meritorious defenses to these claims. We are
presently unable to estimate the damages for which UTCFS could be
liable in the event plaintiffs prevail in one or more of these
cases," the Company said.
VIKING RANGE: Court Tosses Fridge Door Defect Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Coe, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federal
court on Feb. 9 tossed a proposed product liability class action
against appliance maker Viking Range LLC and parent company The
Middleby Corp. over allegedly defective refrigerator door hinges,
finding that causation and damages couldn't be shown through
common evidence.
U.S. District Judge William J. Martini dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey
Products Liability Act without prejudice. He agreed with the
defendants that the state Products Liability Act subsumed the
plaintiffs' fraud claim and that the plaintiffs failed to show
that common questions of law or fact predominated as to their
product liability claim.
"The complaint indicates that [causation and damages] are highly
individualized," the judge wrote. "Regarding causation, a fact
finder will need to consider factors such as service history,
product life, normal use, installation and whether a recall repair
was performed on each unit. . . . Further, the named plaintiffs
allege widely varying damages."
He gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.
The complaint was lodged by two couples in Morris County Superior
Court in November 2013, targeting 11 Viking refrigerator models
with alleged defective door hinges and citing recalls that the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced in 2009 and
2013.
Viking in 2011 agreed to pay a civil penalty based on the CPSC's
claim that Viking knew about the alleged defect for several years
before reporting it. The suit claims that even after Viking,
which Middleby acquired in December 2012, paid the civil penalty,
consumers reported unreasonable delays in receiving repairs to
their refrigerators and that the repairs often failed to correct
the problem.
The suit, which was removed to federal court in January 2014,
called for a class of New Jersey residents who have been injured
or shouldered damages because of the door hinges. The suit
further asserts that Viking deliberately hid from the plaintiffs,
both the defect and the fact that the initial recall did not
remedy the problem.
On Feb. 9, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs' fraud claim
fell within the state Products Liability Act and dismissed it
without prejudice. Although the plaintiffs contended that the
claim couldn't be subsumed because their claim was
"representation-based," the judge determined that the plaintiffs
failed to identify any specific representations Viking made to
them.
"The essence of plaintiffs' claim is that they purchased a
defective product that caused them damage -- allegations which
fall within the scope of a traditional products liability claim,"
the judge wrote.
The judge also consolidated the plaintiffs' breach of implied
warranty, negligence and loss of consortium claims into their
state Products Liability Act claim and held that the Products
Liability Act claim failed to satisfy the requirements of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 -- specifically the
predominance prong. As a result, it had to be dismissed without
prejudice, he said.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin E. Barber --
kbarber@n-blaw.com -- Jessica L. Mariconda and Linda J. Niedweske
-- lniedweske@n-blaw.com -- of Niedweske Barber Hager LLC.
Viking and Middleby are represented by Edward J. Fanning Jr. of
McCarter & English LLP.
The case is Piemonte v. Viking Range LLC et al., case number 2:14-
cv-00124, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
UTAH: Judge Allows DUI Suits to Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Dobner, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that a
judge should allow a civil complaint filed against a former state
trooper and the Utah Highway Patrol to go forward as a class
action lawsuit because the hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of DUI
cases initiated by the officer were based on false statements and
dishonest practices, an attorney argued Feb. 9.
The proposed class action suit was filed in December 2012 on
behalf of Utahns who claim to have been stopped for minor traffic
violations and then wrongly arrested for driving under the
influence of drug or alcohol by former Utah Highway Patrol Cpl.
Lisa Steed and other unnamed troopers.
"She had an arsenal of dishonest conduct," attorney Robert Sykes
told 2nd District Court Judge Michael Allphin on Feb. 9.
Named "Trooper of the Year" in 2007, Ms. Steed was fired by UHP in
2012 after two criminal court judges found she had lied in court.
That raised questions about Ms. Steed's actions in many of the
estimated 1,000 DUI arrests she had made since being hired by the
state in 2002.
Attorneys for Steed and UHP have denied the allegations in court
filings. The state also contends that each case that challenges
Steed's actions and arrest practices must be considered
individually, because each case has its own unique circumstances.
"What if there was probable cause or reasonable suspicion in any
one of those?" Assistant Utah Attorney General Meb Anderson, who
represents Steed, asked the court. "Those are legal questions
only this court can answer."
Judge Allphin took the matter under advisement and said he would
issue a written ruling. It wasn't immediately clear when that
could come, although after the hearing, attorneys said it could
take several months.
Ms. Steed was not present in court Feb. 9.
The lawsuit has three named plaintiffs: Robert C. Anderson, Thomas
Romero and Julie Tapia. Each was arrested and prosecuted for
alleged DUI violations, even though tests on each were either
negative for drugs, metabolites and alcohol, or showed levels of
substances that were below legal limits, court papers state.
Mr. Sykes wants the court to allow Ms. Steed's cases dating back
to 2006 included in the lawsuit and said on Feb. 9 that he
believes as many as 2,000 individuals could be named as
defendants. Of the roughly 300 cases in which videotapes and
written reports have been reviewed, 207 are problematic, Mr. Sykes
said. For example, videos from field sobriety tests don't show
the arrestee's feet as the tests are conducted, he said.
Mr. Sykes illustrated his disagreement with the state's argument
against a class action certification by laying a patchwork quilt
down on the courtroom floor. The quilt's many red fabric squares
represent individual cases, Ms. Steed say, but each is also tied
to the blanket's red border -- a metaphor for Ms. Steed's approach
to making DUI arrests.
"It's all the same . . . that's Lisa Steed," he said, adding
later, "I know there are differences, there are distinctions. But
they are distinctions without a difference because of the red
border . . . It permeates everything."
Ms. Skyes also noted that as early as 2010, Ms. Steed's UHP
supervisor acknowledged in an internal memo that they had concerns
about a "pattern of falsehoods" on some 20 of her DUI drug
arrests. That memo notes that those issues "need to be addressed
before defense attorneys catch on," Sykes said.
The lawsuit alleges Ms. Steed engaged in unconstitutional and
law-breaking behavior aimed at making money for the state through
fines, fees and forfeitures levied on those facing false charges.
Sykes had previously said the lawsuit seeks damages that could
total as much as $20 million.
On Feb. 9, he told Judge Allphin that for most plaintiffs, the
individual damages might range between $5,000 and $20,000,
depending on their circumstances. The damages would be for
attorneys fees, vehicle impound fees, fines and other costs
associated with their arrests and prosecutions.
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Stevens" Suit Over Product Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., John Doe Defendants
1-100, Case No. 3:15-cv-00243 (D. Or., February 12, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants' Spring Valley Gingko Biloba, Spring Valley
St. John's Wort, Spring Valley Ginseng, Spring Valley Echinacea
and Spring Valley Saw Palmetto are mislabeled products because
they lacks the integral ingredient listed on the product label.
Instead, each contains contaminants, substitutes and fillers that
are not identified on the product 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:
Michael J. Estok, Esq.
LINDSAY HART, LLP
1300 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 226-7677
Facsimile: (503) 226-7697
E-mail: mestok@lindsayhart.com
WEST SIDE RESTAURANT: Obtains Approval of "Porter" Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Julie A. Robinson granted a motion for approval of
settlement and for attorneys' fees in the case captioned CAROLYN
PORTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WEST SIDE RESTAURANT, LLC, TAYSSIR ISSA, Defendants,
CASE NO. 13-1112-JAR-KGG, (D. Kan).
The five plaintiffs in this case alleged that the defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not discharging their
obligations to make disclosures to plaintiffs about the tip credit
and by requiring them to share tips with servers employed during
shifts as expeditors.
In Judge Robinson's February 18, 2015 memorandum and order, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/TbQ2zcfrom Leagle.com, the
Court held that the settlement proposed by the parties is fair and
reasonable; and that the proposed settlement will pay each
collective class member on a pro rata basis that is tied to the
hours worked, as well as award them each an amount of liquidated
damages.
The named Plaintiff, Carolyn Porter will receive an enhancement
payment under the settlement agreement in the amount of $500. The
Court found that this is a reasonable enhancement payment, given
the length of the case and the effort expended.
The Court held that the Plaintiff's unopposed attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $53,750 is reasonable.
The Court ordered the parties to file a Joint Stipulation of
Dismissal.
Carolyn Porter, Plaintiff, represented by Donald N. Peterson, II,
Withers, Gough, Pike, Pfaff & Peterson LLC, Kathryn J. Starrett
Rickley -- krickley@workerwagerights.com -- Osman & Smay, LLP,
Matthew Edward Osman, Osman & Smay, LLP & Sean M. McGivern,
Withers, Gough, Pike, Pfaff & Peterson LLC.
Alycia Geraci, Plaintiff, represented by Sean M. McGivern,
Withers, Gough, Pike, Pfaff & Peterson LLC.
Jackhirah Simpson, Plaintiff, represented by Sean M. McGivern,
Withers, Gough, Pike, Pfaff & Peterson LLC.
Jennifer Arrington, Plaintiff, represented by Sean M. McGivern,
Withers, Gough, Pike, Pfaff & Peterson LLC.
Maria C. Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Sean M. McGivern,
Withers, Gough, Pike, Pfaff & Peterson LLC.
West Side Restaurant, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jim Lawing --
jim@lawingandgorney.com -- Lawing & Gorney, LLC & Joseph H.
Cassell -- jhcassell@eronlaw.net -- Eron Law, PA.
Tayssir Issa, Defendant, represented by Jim Lawing, Lawing &
Gorney, LLC & Joseph H. Cassell, Eron Law, PA.
WORLD FOOD: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Martinez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. World Food Enterprises, LLC and Margaret
Antonik, Case No. 1:15-cv-01363 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work more than 40 hours in a week.
The Defendants own and operate a deli and sandwich restaurant
located at 4343 N Harlem Ave Norridge, IL 60706.
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
XPAT XTREME: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Stafford" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Stafford, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Xpat Xtreme Pump & Testing LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00119 (E.D.
Tex., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.
Xpat Xtreme Pump & Testing LLC is a Texas based oilfield services
company providing a variety of services, including testing
pressure containment and blow out prevention.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
Z-LIVE INC: Faces "Dickson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dickson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Z-Live Inc., Laboom Disco, Inc., La
Boom, Inc., Zamora Entertainment NY, Inc., Zamora Entertainment,
Inc., and Pedro Zamora, in his individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-01022 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a night club, dance, lounge, live
music venue and event space in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Sakin, Esq.
HARRIS, CUTLER & HOUGHTELING LLP
Trinity Building
111 Broadway, Suite 402
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 461-2279
Facsimile: (212) 202-6206
E-mail: alexandersakin@gmail.com
- and -
Christopher Quincy Davis, Esq.
Megan Elizabeth Dubatowka, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER DAVIS
18 W. 18th Street, 11th fl.
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (646) 356-1011
Facsimile: (646) 349-2504
E-mail: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com
mdubatowka@workingsolutionsnyc.com
* Oregon House Approves Class Action Bill
-----------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the state House has approved a
measure changing the way Oregon handles class-action lawsuits.
Two Republicans joined all Democrats present in approving the
measure 35-22 on Feb. 9. The Republicans were Julie Parrish of
West Linn and Vic Gilliam of Silverton.
Democrats have put the measure on a fast track over objections
from critics who say it will upend Oregon's legal procedures for
handling class-action lawsuits.
Class-action suits involve multiple people who were harmed in the
same way by a defendant.
Democrats say their legislation would keep businesses from keeping
money obtained illegally. The measure's critics say it could lead
to companies paying damages for people who were never actually
harmed.
The measure goes next to the Senate.
*********
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 * * *