/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150226.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 41 Headlines ABIOMED INC: Oral Arguments Conducted Before First Circuit AIRSTREAM: Recalls 47 Trailers Due to Loose Propane Tank Tray ALL AREA ROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS: MOU Reached in Orbital Stockholder Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Defending Against "Blagman" Class Action AMAZON.COM INC: Supreme Court Ruled in "Busk" Class Action AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Class Suit Settlement Declared Effective AMTECH SYSTEMS: Enters Into MOU to Settle Stockholder Actions ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brown" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "DeVito" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Edwards" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hills" Suit in Colo. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mullahey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Park" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ATKINS & FRERES: Recalls Smoked Salmon and Coriander Rillettes ATLAS ENERGY: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Mergers ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Inspired Investors Class Action AUTOCAR: Recalls 10 Xpert Model Trucks Due to Chassis Issue AVERITT EXPRESS: Faces "Bray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AVX CORP: Accrued $1.2MM in Costs, Expenses Related to Class Suit BANK OF AMERICA: March 13 Hearing to Approve Garibaldi Settlement BG GROUP: "Neely" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages BLACKBOARD ANALYTICS: Accused of Gender Bias by Female Ex-Worker BLUE BIRD: Recalls 32 All American Non-School Bus Model BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 All American School Buses BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS: Lyons Case Stayed Amid Settlement Conference BYA CORP: Accused of FLSA Wage and Hour Violations in New York CALAVO GROWERS: Two Securities Class Actions Filed CASA MARGARITA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims CEVA LOGISTICS: Obtains Initial Approval of Miller Suit Deal CHICAGO CARRIAGE: Class Suit by Taxi Drivers Dismissed CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 19,557 Cherokees Over ORC System Defect CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in "Velasco" Case COVENTRY FIRST: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Arkansas Teacher to Serve as Lead Plaintiff CORN REFINERS: Squire Patton Boggs Ousted From Corn Syrup Suit DIAMOND WIPES: Recalls Love & Beauty Lavender Anti-Aging Eye Mask EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Chancery Court Has Jurisdiction of Virtus Suit EL TORO: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages EMILY HOME: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ESCAPE MEDIA: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement EXTREME NETWORKS: Hearing Today on Summary Judgment Motion FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Provides Update on Truck Stop Litigation FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Update on Merchant Class Litigation FORD MOTOR: Recalls 9,956 MKS Cars Due to Door Handle Woes FORD MOTOR: Recalls 7 Ranger Trucks Due to Airbag Problem FORENSIC COUNSELORS: "Carr" Suit Remanded to State Court FOREST LABORATORIES: 1st Cir. Affirms "Marcus" Suit Dismissal GE DEALER: DBTCA Reviewing Newly-Filed Pleadings GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Barros" Injury Suit to M.D. Florida GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Unseul" Suit to Florida District Court GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Acadia Model GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Malibu, Malibu MAXX and G6 Models GERON CORP: Dismissal Bid in "Patel" Suit to be Heard April 10 GOURMET TRADING: Recalls Frontier Soup Mushroom Barley Soup GROUPON INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Approval of Accord and Remands Case GRUMA CORP: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in Texas HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Class Action Related to Overdraft Fees Settled HEARTLAND: Recalls Big Horn and Big Country Model Trailers HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Wilkerson" Suit Alleging EFTA Violations HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: 2012 Class Action Still in Early Stage HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: Motion to Consolidate Suits Filed IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Trial Ct. Ruling in Marine Case Reversed INVENSENSE INC: Faces 3 Class Action Complaints JB'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Chicken Breading Due to Undeclared Soy KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces "Gross" Securities Class Action KIDDE: Recalls Plastic Valve Disposable Fire Extinguishers LEUCADIA NATIONAL: March 25 Hearing on Shareholder Suit Accord MACK: Recalls CXU Model Over Air Brake System Problems MACK: Recalls LEU Model Due to Defective Door Latches MACK: Recalls CXU Model Due to Defective Air Brake Systems MANAC: Recalls Semi-Trailer Model Due to Possible Brake Drag MCKESSON CORP: Received Share of Class Action Settlements MEL S. HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in Sykes Case MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Sprinter 2500 and Sprinter 3500 Models METROPOLITAN TEA: Recalls Flavored Teas Due to Undeclared Milk MICROSEMI CORP: Obtains Final Approval of "Williamson" Suit Deal NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire & Essex Class A Motorhomes NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire Class A Motorhome Model MOONBEAM CAPITAL: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Facilities NISSAN: Recalls Pathfinder, QX60 and Rogue Models OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiff in "Piechur" Action Files Appeal OUTERWALL INC: 7th Circuit Affirmed Ruling in "Boesky" Action PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models PELLA CORP: Class Rep. Deposition to be Completed in March PETER THE CHEF: Recalls Compliments Traditional Cannelloni PREMIER POLMAREX: Recalls Olza Prince Polo Choc. Covered Wafers R.J. REYNOLDS: Corrected Opinion Entered in "Baker" Case RDIO INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement REGENCY ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: To Defend v. Morning Song Bird Food Suit SEA GULL: Recalls Chandeliers Due to Risk of Fall SEARS CANADA: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs SIRIUS XM: To Appeal Ruling in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Cases SIRIUS XM: Seeks Indemnification From Call Center Vendors SONY COMPUTER: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Print Fleece Top with Hood SUNBEAM: Recalls Bionaire and Sunbeam Oil Filled Heaters T & K HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TALK4LESS LLC: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TASTE OF COUNTRY: Recalls Chicken Pie Due to Undeclared Milk TAYLOR FARMS: Judge Narrows Class in Hourly Workers' Suit TJX CANADA: Recalls Masala Maza Korma Simmer Sauce TOTALLY GLUTEN: Recalls Pizzas Due to Undeclared Mustard TOYOTA: Recalls FJ Cruiser Model Due to Possible Loss of Steering TRIUMPH PROPERTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Settled With Former Chief Financial Officer UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss Immigrants' Case UNITED STATES: Suit Against Retirement Systems Dept. Remanded WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lowe" Suit Over Product Misbranding WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Myers" Suit in Indiana District Court WATSON LABORATORIES: Direct Purchasers Obtain Final Judgment WHITE HALL: Removes "Hartman" FLSA Suit to N.D. West Virginia * Percentage of Women Lawyers in Top Positions Low, NAWL Says ********* ABIOMED INC: Oral Arguments Conducted Before First Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Oral arguments in a class action appeal were conducted before the First Circuit on January 8, 2015, Abiomed, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. On November 16 and 19, 2012, two purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the District Court, by alleged purchasers of its common stock, on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired common stock of the Company between August 5, 2011 and October 31, 2012. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to the Company's marketing and labeling of the Impella 2.5 product and seek damages in an unspecified amount. The District Court consolidated these complaints and a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May 20, 2013. On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action. Oral arguments on the Company's motion to dismiss were conducted before the District Court on September 18, 2013. On April 10, 2014, the District Court entered an order granting the Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated and amended complaint. On May 9, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and subsequently filed their appellate brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the First Circuit, on July 16, 2014. Oral arguments were conducted before the First Circuit on January 8, 2015. "We are currently awaiting the ruling of the First Circuit court," the Company said. AIRSTREAM: Recalls 47 Trailers Due to Loose Propane Tank Tray ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 47 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015057 TC ID number: 2015057 On certain travel trailers, the Propane tank trays may not have been properly fastened to the trailer due to faulty screws. If the tray was to come loose from the trailer, the tanks could fall off the trailer causing personal injury and/or property damage. If the tanks were to contain propane at the time of failure, this would also increase the risk of explosion and/or fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the faulty screws with bigger bolts. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- AIRSTREAM LAND YACHT 2014, 2015 AIRSTREAM INTERNATIONAL 2014, 2015 AIRSTREAM FLYING CLOUD 2014, 2015 AIRSTREAM EDDIE BAUER 2014, 2015 AIRSTREAM SPORT 2014, 2015 ALL AREA ROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Comer, Tommie Johnson, and Darrell Brown v. All Area Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc., All Area Roofing & Construction, Inc., and Jennifer Richards, Case No. 2:15-cv-14049-RLR (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2015) is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendants are the Plaintiff's employer and a corporation conducting business in Florida. Jennifer Richards had operational control over the Plaintiff's corporate employer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd William Shulby, Esq. TODD W. SHULBY, P.A. 2800 Weston Road, Suite 101 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile: (954) 530-6628 E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS: MOU Reached in Orbital Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Alliant Techsystems 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 28, 2014, that a Memorandum of Understanding was reached in the case Orbital Sciences Corporation Stockholder Litigation, providing for the settlement in principle of all claims asserted in the action, subject to the approval of the court. On May 5, 2014, a purported stockholder class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia by Michael Blank, who claims to be a stockholder of Orbital Sciences Corporation, alleging, among other things, that the directors of Orbital breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Transaction between Orbital and ATK, and alleging that ATK aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. A similar purported class action was filed on May 9, 2014, by Gregory Ericksen in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Plaintiffs in Virginia and Delaware seek, among other relief, to enjoin the Transaction (or, in the Delaware action, to rescind it in the event it is consummated). On January 16, 2015, following arm's-length negotiation, the parties to In re Orbital Sciences Corporation Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 9635-VCN, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement in principle of all claims asserted in the action, subject to the approval of the court. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Orbital and ATK agreed to make additional information available to Orbital's stockholders. That additional information, which should be read in concert with the previously filed joint proxy statement/prospectus, was included in a Form 8-K filing by Orbital on January 16, 2015. In addition, the defendants agreed to negotiate in good faith with plaintiffs' counsel regarding an appropriate amount of fees and expenses to be paid to plaintiffs' counsel by Orbital or its successor. ATK, Orbital and the other defendants continue to deny all of the allegations in the lawsuit and believe the disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus are adequate under the law. Nevertheless, ATK, Orbital and the other defendants have agreed to settle the lawsuit for legal expenses incurred to date in order to avoid the burden, expense, distraction and uncertainties inherent in further litigation. If approved by the court, the settlement provides for dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit and provides for the release of any and all claims arising from the merger, except for those relating to any alleged material inaccuracy in ATK's historical financial statements. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a definitive settlement agreement or that the court will approve the settlement. In such event, or if the merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in connection with the settlement, which are subject to court approval, are not expected to be material. The settlement will not affect the consideration to be received by Orbital's stockholders in the merger or the timing of the anticipated closing of the merger. AMAZON.COM INC: Defending Against "Blagman" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Amazon.Com, Inc. continues to defend against a purported class- action complaint by Norman Blagman, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the fiscal year period ended December 31, 2014. In July 2012, Norman Blagman filed a purported class-action complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. "The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon.com, Inc. sells digital music in our Amazon MP3 Store obtained from defendant Orchard Enterprises and other unnamed "digital music aggregators" without obtaining mechanical licenses for the compositions embodied in that music. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and interest. We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter," the Company said. AMAZON.COM INC: Supreme Court Ruled in "Busk" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court ruled in the "Busk" class action that time spent waiting for and undergoing security screening is not compensable working time under the federal wage and hour statute, Amazon.Com, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the fiscal year period ended December 31, 2014. Beginning in August 2013, a number of complaints were filed alleging, among other things, that Amazon.com, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries failed to compensate hourly workers for time spent waiting in security lines and otherwise violated federal and state wage and hour statutes and common law. In August 2013, Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and Vance v. Amazon.com, Inc., Zappos.com Inc., another affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc., and Kelly Services, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In September 2013, Allison v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and Johnson v. Amazon.com, Inc. and an affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In October 2013, Davis v. Amazon.com, Inc., an affiliate of Amazon.com, Inc., and Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs variously purport to represent a nationwide class of certain current and former employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or state-law-based subclasses for certain current and former employees in states including Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Nevada, and one complaint asserts nationwide breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. "We have been named in several other similar cases. In December 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Busk that time spent waiting for and undergoing security screening is not compensable working time under the federal wage and hour statute. We dispute any remaining allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters," the Company said. AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Class Suit Settlement Declared Effective ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Superconductor 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 Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement reached in the securities class action complaints became effective June 5, 2014. Between April 6, 2011 and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"); one complaint additionally asserted claims against the underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities offering. On June 7, 2011, the Court consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY. On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company, its officers and directors, and the underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, as well as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. On November 19, 2013, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which resolved the claims asserted against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters. The terms of the Stipulation provided, among other things, a settlement payment by the Company of $10.0 million, $8.2 million of which was to be funded by the Company's insurers and $1.8 million of which was paid through the issuance of 944,882 shares of its common stock (the "Settlement Shares"). In the event that the value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) decreased as of the effective date of the settlement, the Company was required to make a cash payment for the difference in value. The effective date of the Stipulation was June 5, 2014 (the "Effective Date"). Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (i) on June 11, 2014, the Company made a cash payment of approximately $0.5 million for the decrease in value of the Settlement Shares (as calculated under the Stipulation) as of the Effective Date, and (ii) on June 18, 2014, the Company issued the Settlement Shares. The issuance of the Settlement Shares was exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act. The payments by the Company represented the final amounts to be paid to the plaintiffs under the Stipulation. AMTECH SYSTEMS: Enters Into MOU to Settle Stockholder Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Amtech Systems, 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 and BTU International, Inc., along with the other defendants, entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle stockholder class actions. The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time in actions for matters arising out of their business operations. On October 21, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among the Company, BTU Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Merger Sub"), and BTU International, Inc. a Delaware corporation ("BTU"). Shortly after the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (together, the "Stockholder Actions"). The first was filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014, purportedly on behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against BTU, the members of the BTU Board, Amtech and Merger Sub. The Stockholder Actions were consolidated into one action on December 4, 2014. These complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of BTU's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to BTU's public stockholders by failing to engage in a competitive sale and bidding process, by causing BTU to enter into the Merger Agreement and by approving the merger, and that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. These complaints further allege that these fiduciary breaches gave the Company an unfair advantage as a result of BTU's alleged failure to solicit other potential acquirers and also that the Merger Agreement improperly favors the Company and unduly restricts BTU's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders. The complaint generally seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the Company, Merger Sub, and BTU from consummating the Merger, other forms of equitable relief, and compensatory damages. On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to settle the Stockholder Actions. Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed to resolve the claims alleged and the Company and BTU agreed to make certain additional disclosures regarding the Merger. The MOU is expected to be memorialized in a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary terms and conditions, including court approval, and will include an agreement by the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Actions, on behalf of each stockholder class, to provide a release of all claims against the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, subject to an exception for certain securities law claims. In addition, as part of the settlement, BTU has agreed to be responsible for the payment of certain amounts in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses in connection with the settlement. The Company and BTU entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. The merger was consummated on January 30, 2015. The plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses will be reflected as a liability on the opening balance sheet of BTU on the date of the merger. ANTHEM INC: Faces "Brown" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Alyce G. Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00710 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 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: Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW GROUP, APC 402 West Broadway 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6990 E-mail: Todd@Carpenterlawyers.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "DeVito" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer DeVito Jigarjian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15- cv-00316 (S.D. Cal., February 13, 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: Stephen Richard Basser, Esq. BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Edwards" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kellen Edwards and George Nicoud, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00318 (S.D. Cal., February 13, 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: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 Facsimile: (619) 400-5832 E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com - and - Joseph M. Barton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. BARTON 628 Manzanita Avenue Corte Madera, CA 94925 Telephone: 415-235-9162 E-mail: joebartonesq@gmail.com - and - John K. Landay, Esq. LANDAY ROBERTS LLP 450 J Street, Unit 5291 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (805) 305-3384 E-mail: jlanday@landayroberts.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hills" Suit in Colo. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Hills, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:15- cv-00314 (D. Colo., February 13, 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: Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (970) 673-9075 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mullahey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Steven Mullahey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00138 (M.D. Tenn., February 13, 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: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert P. Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES P.O Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 248-2828 Facsimile: (615) 254-4116 E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com robert@bramlettlawoffices.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: burt@whafh.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Park" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Gloria K. Park, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00709 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 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: Gordon M. Fauth Jr., Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. LITIGATION LAW GROUP 1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone (510) 238-9610 Facsimile (510) 337-1431 E-mail: gmf@classlitigation.com rlm@classlitigation.com ATKINS & FRERES: Recalls Smoked Salmon and Coriander Rillettes -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Atkins & Freres Inc. Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9619 Atkins & Freres Inc. is recalling Atkins & Freres brand Smoked Salmon and Coriander Rillettes from the marketplace because they contain mustard and egg which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard or egg should not consume the recalled products. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to mustard or egg, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. ATLAS ENERGY: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Mergers ----------------------------------------------------- Atlas Energy Group, LLC said in an exhibit to its Amendment No. 4 To FORM 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that since the announcement on October 13, 2014 of the Atlas Merger and the APL Merger, Atlas Energy, APL and the other parties to the mergers have been named as defendants in putative stockholder class action complaints challenging the transactions. The Company said, "Although New Atlas has not been named as a defendant in these complaints, certain of our expected officers have been named as defendants, and the litigation could delay or impede the consummation of the separation and distribution." "As of January 30, 2015, we are aware that Atlas Energy, Atlas Energy's general partner, Targa Resources, Trident GP Merger Sub LLC (a subsidiary of Targa Resources created in connection with the Atlas Merger), and the members of the Atlas Energy board, including Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New Atlas's expected Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, have been named as defendants in two putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the Atlas Merger filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases are captioned: Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. GD- 14-019658 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 22, 2013) and Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020255 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Nov. 3, 2014) (the "ATLS Lawsuits"). The ATLS Lawsuits were consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit"), although the Kane litigation has since been voluntarily dismissed. We are also aware that APL, APL's general partner, Atlas Energy, Targa Resources, Targa Resources Partners, Targa Resource Partners' general partner, Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC (a subsidiary of Targa Resources Partners created in connection with the APL Merger), and the members of the APL board, including Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New Atlas's expected Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, have been named as defendants in five putative stockholder class action complaints challenging the APL Merger, four filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and one filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. These cases are captioned: Michael Envin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-019245 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 17, 2013), Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020108 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 31, 2014), Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020729 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Nov. 10, 2014), Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-22208 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Dec. 5, 2014) and William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. CJ-2014-04087 (Okla. D. Ct. Oct. 28, 2014) (the "APL Lawsuits" and, together with the ATLS Lawsuits, the "Lawsuits"). The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum APL Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14- 019245, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated APL Lawsuit"). "The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or contractual obligations by, among other things, failing to obtain sufficient value for the Atlas Energy and APL unitholders in, respectively, each of the Atlas Energy Merger and the APL Merger, agreeing to certain terms in each of the merger agreements that allegedly restrict the defendants' ability to obtain a more favorable offer, favoring their self-interests over the interests of ATLS and APL unitholders, and omitting material information from the Proxy Statements. The lawsuits further allege that those breaches were aided and abetted by some combination of Atlas Energy, APL, Targa Resources, Targa Resources Partners, or various affiliates of those entities named above. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, attorney's fees, other expenses, and costs." ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Inspired Investors Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Atlas Energy Group, LLC said in an exhibit to its Amendment No. 4 To FORM 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that a putative stockholder class action and derivative lawsuit, captioned Inspired Investors v. Perkins et. al., Case No. 2015-04961, was filed on January 28, 2015, purportedly on behalf of Targa Resources Corp. shareholders in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. The lawsuit names Atlas Energy and the individual members of the board of directors of Targa Resources Corp. as defendants and Targa Resources Corp. as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, omitting purportedly material information from the registration statement on Form S-4 that Targa Resources Corp. initially filed with the SEC on November 20, 2014 and most recently amended on January 22, 2015. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and unspecified recissory damages, attorney's fees, interest, and costs. AUTOCAR: Recalls 10 Xpert Model Trucks Due to Chassis Issue ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 29, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 10 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015042 TC ID number: 2015042 Manufacturer recall number: M-1408 Certain Xpert chassis vehicles may experience a bounce condition while traveling 40km\h or faster, related to chassis flexibility and body configuration. The bounce condition may be surprising or unnerving to the operator. This could result in a loss of driver control of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. The vehicle will be re-calibrated with an updated calibration program. This updated calibration will correct the issue. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2014394. Affected products: 2012 Autocar AVERITT EXPRESS: Faces "Bray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- James M. Bray and Barbara Stabler v. Averitt Express Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-00267 (N.D. Ala., February 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Averitt Express Inc. provides supply chain management services to MBUSI at the Vance Alabama Plants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis George Pantazis Jr., Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0557 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dpantazisjr@wigginschilds.com AVX CORP: Accrued $1.2MM in Costs, Expenses Related to Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- AVX 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 had $1,200,000 in accrued costs and expenses with respect to a class action lawsuit as of December 31, 2014. "On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State Court by individuals as a class action with respect to property adjacent to our Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming property values were negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants from our property. The parties agreed to a $1,200 settlement of the action, which was approved by the Court on December 15, 2014. We have $1,200 in accrued costs and expenses with respect to this case as of December 31, 2014," the Company said. BANK OF AMERICA: March 13 Hearing to Approve Garibaldi Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Ilston approved a second stipulation by Plaintiff Sheri Garibaldi and Defendant Bank of America, N.A. to continue the filing deadline and hearing date on plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The judge's order was entered in the lawsuit SHERI GARIBALDI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-02223-SI, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Feb. 11, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/ZMvkshfrom Leagle.com. Specifically, February 27, 2015 is the Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. A March 13, 2015, 9:00 a.m. hearing will be convened to consider Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval. McGUIREWOODS LLP, Matthew C. Kane, Michael D. Mandel, John A. Van Hook, Christopher Killens, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. BAKER & SCHWARTZ LAW PRACTICE, Chris Baker, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, SHERI GARIBALDI. BG GROUP: "Neely" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bobby Neely, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. The BG Group, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 9:15-cv-80192 (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The BG Group, LLC is a Florida limited liability company that specializes in demolition, asbestos abatement, excavation and recycling. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq. THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com BLACKBOARD ANALYTICS: Accused of Gender Bias by Female Ex-Worker ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vicki Katz v. Blackboard Analytics, a Division of Blackboard, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02596-DDC-JPO (D. Kan., February 17, 2015) alleges that during the entirety of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, she was compensated less than similarly situated men for similar work, which required similar skill. Ms. Katz is a female resident of Overland Park (Johnson County), Kansas. She was employed by Blackboard working from her home in Overland Park, Kansas. She alleges that the Defendant wrongfully terminated her from employment because of her gender and because she complained about unfair treatment and pay. Blackboard, Inc. is a Delaware for profit corporation doing business in the state of Kansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark V. Dugan, Esq. Heather J. Schlozman, Esq. DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC 8826 Santa Fe, Suite 307 Overland Park, KS 66212 Telephone: (913) 322-3528 Facsimile: (913) 894-1686 E-mail: mark@duganschlozman.com heather@duganschlozman.com BLUE BIRD: Recalls 32 All American Non-School Bus Model ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Emissions Units affected: 32 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015051 TC ID number: 2015051 Manufacturer recall number: R15YB-C On certain buses, the exhaust system hanger may fail, possibly causing damage to the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) housings. Should this occur, the housings could separate and become a road hazard, posing a risk to motorists and bystanders. Dealers will provide new bolted hanger assemblies and support cables. Affected products: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 BLUE Bird All American Non-School Bus BLUE BIRD: Recalls 54 All American School Buses ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Emissions Units affected: 54 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015050 TC ID number: 2015050 Manufacturer recall number: R15YB-C On certain school buses, the exhaust system hanger may fail, possibly causing damage to the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) housings. Should this occur, the housings could separate and become a road hazard, posing a risk to motorists and bystanders. Correction: Dealers will provide new bolted hanger assemblies and support cables. Affected products: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 Blue Bird All American School Bus BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS: Lyons Case Stayed Amid Settlement Conference ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on February 18, 2015, an amended stipulation and order referring the case captioned SHERI LYONS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-4869 EMC, (N.D. Cal.) to an early settlement conference and staying proceedings pending the settlement conference. The parties believe that a stay of this case until 30 days after the requested settlement conference will allow the parties to focus their efforts on settlement negotiations, will preserve scarce judicial resources, and will save the parties considerable time and expense. The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/wePbzQfrom Leagle.com, provides that: * The case will be referred to a Magistrate Judge for an early settlement conference; * That all other proceedings in the action will be stayed until 30 days after the date of the settlement conference; * That all pending motions, discovery, and court deadlines should be vacated; * That initial disclosures will be due 28 days after expiration of the stay; * That Bouchaine's response to Lyons' complaint will be due 30 days after expiration of the stay; and * That Bouchaine's response to Plaintiff's pending discovery requests will be due 40 days after expiration of the stay. Racheal Turner -- rturner@fbm.com -- Amber C. Chrystal -- achrystal@fbm.com -- Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant, BOUCHAINE VINEYARDS, INC. Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq., Tatar Law Firm, APC, Burbank, CA, Thomas J. Lyons Jr., Esq., MN Attorney I.D. #: 0249646 Consumer Justice Center P.A., Vadnais Heights, MN, admitted pro hac vice 1/20/15, Attorneys for Plaintiff, SHERI LYONS. BYA CORP: Accused of FLSA Wage and Hour Violations in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Biljana Sugranes v. BYA Corp. d/b/a Lobster Box and Vasilios Lambos, Case No. 1:15-cv-01115-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 17, 2015) seeks damages and other appropriate relief to remedy the Defendants' alleged wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. BYA Corp., doing business as Lobster Box, is a New York domestic business corporation with its principal place of business located in Bronx, New York. The Company operates its restaurant at that same address under the name "Lobster Box." Vasilios Lambos is a resident of Westchester, New York. He is an owner, agent, officer, director or president of BYA Corp. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Weiner, Esq. Marsha Mozammel, Esq. IMBESI LAW PC 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (646) 380-9555 Facsimile: (212)658-9177 E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com marsha@lawicm.com CALAVO GROWERS: Two Securities Class Actions Filed -------------------------------------------------- Calavo Growers, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2014, that in January 2015, two purported securities class action complaints- El Dabe v. Calavo Growers, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-00400 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2015), and O'Hanlon v. Calavo Growers, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv- 00414 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015)-were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The cases arise from the Company's announcement on January 15, 2015 that it had identified a non-cash misstatement in its historical consolidated financial statements related to its treatment of contingent consideration in the Company's acquisition of Renaissance Food Group, LLC in June 2011. The same day, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission announcing that the Company was recording a non-cash charge totaling $88.9 million before tax ($54 million net of tax) in connection with the error. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by fraudulently misstating the Company's finances in the Company's public filings. Both complaints also allege that the Company is liable for these actions pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Act because its officers were "controlling persons" of the Company. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints. Based on the very early stage of the litigation, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters. CASA MARGARITA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Gomez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Casa Margarita III, Inc. and Al Lotfi, Case No. 1:15-cv-01397 (N.D. Ill., February 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate Casa Margarit restaurant located at 145 S. Weber Road, Bolingbrook, 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 CEVA LOGISTICS: Obtains Initial Approval of Miller Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in KEN MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CEVA LOGISTICS USA, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-01321-TLN- CKD, (E.D. Cal.). The Court provisionally certified for settlement purposes, the Settlement Class defined as: "All persons who, at any time after four (4) years prior to the filing of this action through the date of trial, are or were employed as drivers by Defendants in California." Under the proposed settlement, the Defendants will pay a sum equal to $2,600,000.00 (the Maximum Settlement Amount) to fund the settlement payments to the class members, administration of the settlement and payment of an Enhancement Award and attorney's fees and costs. CEVA will contribute $2,500,000 toward the Maximum Settlement Amount and ADECCO will contribute $100,000. The expected maximum Net Settlement Amount is estimated to be $1,620,000. The Court confirms the following persons as the class representatives: Ken Miller, Jeremie Todd, and Christopher Franklin; and appoints R. Duane Westrup of Westrup & Associates as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only. The Court approves Rust Consulting as the Claims Administrator. At the time of final approval, each of the representative Plaintiffs will request that the Court approve an enhancement of $15,000 each for acting as the class representatives. Westrup & Associates will request attorneys' fees in the amount of $865,000.00 and costs incurred, not to exceed $50,000.00. Judge Nunley ordered the parties to meet and confer as to possible dates for the final fairness hearing and file with the Court a proposed date within 30 days. Upon the Court's approval of such date, the parties will submit an updated Notice of Class Action Settlement to the Court for final approval. With submission of the Notice of Class Action Settlement the parties will file an updated Implementation Schedule for all other applicable further proceedings, including Motions for attorney's fees. A copy of the Court's February 18, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/VfVPTNfrom Leagle.com. Ken Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R Poliner -- ppoliner@wkalaw.com -- Westrup Klick LLP & R. Duane Westrup, Westrup Klick LLP. Jeremie Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R Poliner, Westrup Klick LLP & R. Duane Westrup, Westrup Klick LLP. Christopher Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R Poliner, Westrup Klick LLP & R. Duane Westrup, Westrup Klick LLP. CEVA Logistics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather Allison Elmore -- Allison.Elmore@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Fraser Angus McAlpine -- fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. Adecco USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Forve Barker -- cbarker@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Thomas Y. Lee -- tlee@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP & Suzanna L. Winslow -- swinslow@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton. CHICAGO CARRIAGE: Class Suit by Taxi Drivers Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Andrea R. Wood of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case, PETER ENGER, KAREN CHAMBERLAIN, COURTNEY CREATER, GREGORY MCGEE, and FINN EBELECHUKWU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHICAGO CARRIAGE CAB CO., YELLOW CAB AFFILIATION, INC., FLASH CAB CO., DISPATCH TAXI AFFILIATION, INC., SIMON GARBER, MICHAEL LEVINE, HENRY ELIZAR, SAVAS TSITIRIDIS, and EVEGNY FRIEDMAN, Defendants, NO 14-CV-02117 (N.D. Ill.) The plaintiffs Peter Enger, Karen Chamberlain, Courtney Creater, Gregory McGee, and Finn Ebelechukwu work as taxi drivers in Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiffs worked for defendant cab services Chicago Carriage Cab Co., Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc., 5 Star Flash Inc., and Dispatch Taxi Affiliation, Inc. (the Cab Defendants) or their affiliates. Defendants Simon Garber, Michael Levine, Henry Elizar, Savas Tsitiridis, and Evegny Friedman (the Individual Defendants) own various of the Cab Defendants. To drive for one of the Cab Defendants, taxi drivers must pay fees, either directly to the Cab Defendants or their affiliates. The drivers may pay these fees on a weekly basis or a daily basis. Plaintiffs have filed a two-count complaint alleging that defendants (1) violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act or IWPCA, and (2) were unjustly enriched by their misconduct. The suit is a putative class action on behalf of all other persons who have worked as taxi drivers in Chicago, Illinois, over the last ten years for any of the defendants or their affiliates and have had to pay weekly fees or daily fees (for 12 or 24 hour shifts) in order to work as taxi drivers. Plaintiffs claim that they, and others similarly situated to them, are mischaracterized as independent contractors. Plaintiffs further allege that as a result of this misclassification, defendants have not only charged plaintiffs to work, but also have required them to pay the expenses necessary to operate a taxi and have failed to ensure that their taxi drivers earn minimum wage or overtime pay, have protection under employment discrimination or unemployment statutes, or enjoy any other privileges, benefits, or protections of employment. Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to plead any sort of contract or agreement that could support their IWPCA claim. The defendants have moved to dismiss these claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Wood granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refiling. The Motion to Dismiss Complaint as to Defendants Freidman and Tstiridis is denied as moot. A copy of Judge Woods' memorandum opinion and order dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/TivrUofrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: John E Duke, Esq. Shannon E Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: 617-994-5800 Facsimile: 617-994-5801 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com - and - Ryan F Stephan, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-233-1550 Facsimile: 312-233-1560 Chicago Carriage Cab Co., Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc., Flash Cab Company, Simon Garber, Michael Levine, Henry Elizar, Defendants, represented by Brian P Paul -- bppaul@michaelbest.com -- Carrie A. Hall -- cahall@michaelbest.com -- Michael A. Stiegel -- mastiegel@michaelbest.com -- Benjamin Thomas Johnson -- btjohnson@michaelbest.com -- at Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Savas Tsitiridis and Evgeny Freidman, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey H. Bunn -- jbunn@llflegal.com -- at Latimer LeVay Fyock CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 19,557 Cherokees Over ORC System Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 19557 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015039 TC ID number: 2015039 Manufacturer recall number: R05 On certain vehicles, a defect in the Occupant Restraint Control (ORC) system could result in unwanted side curtain and seat airbag deployment in off-road events. Unintended airbag deployment, in a non-warranted (non-impact) situation, could startle the driver, which could result in a vehicle crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will update ORC module software. Affected products: 2014 Jeep Cherokee CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in "Velasco" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the Central District of California denied a motion to intervene in the case PETER VELASCO, CHRISTOPHER WHITE, JACQUELINE YOUNG, and CHRISTOPHER LIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. CV 13-08080 DDP (VBKX)(C.D. Cal.) The plaintiffs filed the putative class action suit against Chrysler Group, LLC, over the alleged failure of an electronic control unit, knows as the TIPM-7, installed in a number of late- model Chrysler vehicles. On September 18, 2014, plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction authorizing them to send potential class members a preliminary notice warning of the potential for dangerous component failures in Chrysler vehicles equipped with the TIPM-7. Plaintiffs applied to submit certain documents related to the motion provisionally under seal, because the parties were still attempting to reach settlement. Defendant similarly filed an application to submit documents in opposition to the motion under seal, primarily because the documents constituted confidential business information. The court denied plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. On October 23, 2014, nonparty Center for Auto Safety (CAS) filed motions to intervene in the case and to unseal portions of the record on the motion for preliminary injunction. Chrysler opposed the motions. Judge Pregerson denied the nonparty's motion to intervene and motion to unseal. However, the denial is without prejudice and CAS is free to move to intervene again in the event that future motions also present questions of public access to court records. Plaintiff is ordered to file a single new document. A copy of Judge Pregerson's order dated December 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/IJKCanfrom Leagle.com Jacqueline Young, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP, Joshua G Konecky, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Todd M Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP Bradford Soule, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP John Melville, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP Daphne Ray, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP,Eric H Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP &Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP Phillip Lightfoot, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP Donald Kendrick, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP Marcos Galvan, Plaintiff, represented by David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Eric H Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP Jimmy Pat Carter, Plaintiff, represented by David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Eric H Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP Elizabeth Dillon, Plaintiff, represented by David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP, Rachel Adi Naor, Girard Gibbs LLP & Eric H Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian S Westenberg, Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone PLC, John Woodson Rogers, Thompson Coburn LLP, Kathy A Wisniewski, Thompson Coburn LLP, M Sheila Jeffrey, Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone PLC, Stephen A D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn LLP &Rowena G Santos, Thompson Coburn LLP The Center for Auto Safety, Intervenor, represented by Jennifer D Bennett, Public Justice PC & Leslie Andrea Bailey, Public Justice PC COVENTRY FIRST: Court Denies Bid to Strike Class Allegations ------------------------------------------------------------ In LINCOLN T. GRISWOLD, and LINCOLN T. GRISWOLD FAMILY LLP, Plaintiffs, v. COVENTRY FIRST LLC, THE COVENTRY GROUP, INC., MONTGOMERY CAPITAL, INC., COVENTRY FINANCIAL, LLC, and REID S. BUERGER, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5964, (E.D. Penn.), pending before the Court was the motion by defendants to strike plaintiffs' class action allegations from the First Amended Complaint. The crux of this case involves Plaintiff Lincoln T. Griswold's purchase of a life insurance policy that was later sold to Defendant Coventry First LLC at a purportedly inflated price that included kickbacks to the broker. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter issued a memorandum on February 18, 2015 denying the Defendants' motion to strike saying "this Court will allow the class claims to proceed past the pleading stage and will consider issues of the propriety of a class action upon properly-filed and briefed motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23." A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/cMBems from Leagle.com. LINCOLN T. GRISWOLD, INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER P. THORMAN -- cthorman@tpgfirm.com -- THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, DANIEL PAUL GOETZ -- dgoetz@weismanlaw.com -- WEISMAN KENNEDY BERRIS CO LPA, DANIEL P. PETROV -- dpetrov@tpgfirm.com -- THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, GERARD M. MCCABE, Mitts Law, LLC, J. MATTHEW LINEHAN -- mlinehan@thllaw.com -- THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, MARK DAVIES GRIFFIN -- mgriffin@thllaw.com -- THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, PETER HARDIN-LEVINE -- plevine@thllaw.co -- THORMAN & HARDIN-LEVINE CO LPA & R. ERIC KENNEDY -- ekennedy@weismanlaw.com -- WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS. LINCOLN T. GRISWOLD, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER P. THORMAN, THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, DANIEL PAUL GOETZ, WEISMAN KENNEDY BERRIS CO LPA, DANIEL P. PETROV, THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, GERARD M. MCCABE, Mitts Law, LLC, J. MATTHEW LINEHAN, THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, MARK DAVIES GRIFFIN, THORMAN PETROV GRIFFIN CO., LPA, PETER HARDIN-LEVINE, THORMAN & HARDIN-LEVINE CO LPA & R. ERIC KENNEDY, WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS. COVENTRY FIRST LLC, Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND -- jlund@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON -- kthomason@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, RICHMOND T. MOORE -- rtmoore@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT ASHWORTH -- washworth@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER -- dforkner@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY -- fjacoby@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M. MCHUGH -- jmchugh@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN -- kbrown@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, MARCIE R. ZIEGLER -- mziegler@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS -- sandrews@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP. THE COVENTRY GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, RICHMOND T. MOORE, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT ASHWORTH, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY, COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M. MCHUGH, COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, MARCIE R. ZIEGLER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP. MONTGOMERY CAPITAL, INC., Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, RICHMOND T. MOORE, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT ASHWORTH, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY, COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M. MCHUGH, COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, MARCIE R. ZIEGLER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP. COVENTRY FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, RICHMOND T. MOORE, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT ASHWORTH, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY, COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M. MCHUGH, COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, MARCIE R. ZIEGLER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP. REID S. BUERGER, Defendant, represented by JULI ANN LUND, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, KYLE EUGENE THOMASON, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, RICHMOND T. MOORE, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, WILLIAM PRUITT ASHWORTH, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, DAVID FORKNER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, FRED WARREN JACOBY, COZEN O'CONNOR, JENNIFER M. MCHUGH, COZEN O'CONNOR, KENNETH J. BROWN, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, MARCIE R. ZIEGLER, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP & STEPHEN D. ANDREWS, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP. COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Arkansas Teacher to Serve as Lead Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------------------- CommVault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Court entered an order (i) appointing the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, (ii) appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP to serve as lead counsel, and (iii) changing the case caption to "In re CommVault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation." On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan vs. CommVault Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No. 3:14-cv-05628-JAP-LHG). The suit alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts, regarding the Company's financial results, business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class period from May 15, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief. On January 12, 2015, the Court entered an order (i) appointing the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, (ii) appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP to serve as lead counsel, and (iii) changing the case caption to "In re CommVault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation." At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses that it may experience. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. As of December 31, 2014 the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter. CORN REFINERS: Squire Patton Boggs Ousted From Corn Syrup Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports a federal judge in California has disqualified Squire Patton Boggs from a high-stakes case between the sugar and high-fructose corn syrup industries due to conflicts that arose from the law firm's merger last year. Squire Sanders brought the case in 2011 on behalf of The Sugar Association Inc. in Washington and nine of its members, alleging the Corn Refiners Association and its members misled consumers in advertisements stating that corn syrup is "natural" and no different nutritionally from table sugar. Two of the corn refiners once represented by Patton Boggs filed motions to disqualify Squire Patton Boggs from representing The Sugar Association, claiming they hadn't been informed of its June 1 merger. Squire Patton Boggs argued that both corn refiners signed advanced waivers years ago and that the matters in which it represented them were unrelated to the current case. In her Feb. 13 ruling, U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall of the Central District of California disagreed. She also rejected several proposed alternatives to disqualification, such as creating ethical walls in the case, while acknowledging the burden of disqualifying Squire Patton Boggs so close to trial. "Indeed, disqualification at this late stage would undoubtedly impose hardship on plaintiffs," she wrote. She noted that the parties had engaged in "extensive discovery and motion practice" and that the plaintiffs had incurred more than $12 million in fees from Squire Patton, reflecting 20,000 hours of professional time. But Judge Marshall found that none of the alternatives resolved the conflict. She raised particular concern that Stuart Pape, the Patton Boggs attorney in Washington who signed the engagement letters as to both companies in 1998 and 2004, had created a "real risk" of disclosing confidential information when he consulted, after the merger, with an expert witness for the plaintiffs and with John Burlingame, co-lead attorney in the case at Squire Sanders. On Feb. 5, Mr. Pape, longtime managing partner of Patton Boggs, left the firm for Kansas City, Mo.-based Polsinelli, along with partner Carey Nuttall and of counsel Anne Spiggle. Mr. Pape, Nuttall and Spiggle were identified in Judge Marshall's ruling as being the only attorneys remaining at Squire Patton Boggs who worked on matters for one of the corn-refiner clients, Ingredion Inc., after 2010. After disqualifying the firm, Judge Marshall stayed the case, including a Feb. 24 pre-trial hearing, and scheduled the next hearing for May 5. Squire Patton Boggs spokesman Angelo Kakolyris declined to comment, and Edith Matthai of Robie & Matthai in Los Angeles, who represented the firm, did not respond to a request for comment. The Sugar Association issued a statement: "We have the utmost respect for the lawyers of Squire Patton Boggs, and we thank them for the representation they have provided in the past. As the court's order requires, the Sugar Association and its members will continue to pursue their rights in this litigation through other counsel. We are looking forward to our existing trial team (The Lanier Law Firm) bringing our claims to a jury." DIAMOND WIPES: Recalls Love & Beauty Lavender Anti-Aging Eye Mask ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 5, 2015 Posting date: February 5, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Cosmetics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Contamination Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43611 Affected products: Love & Beauty by Forever 21 Lavender Anti-Aging Eye Mask The recall involves Love & Beauty by Forever 21 Lavender Anti- Aging Eye Mask with batch code stamp "MFG: 11/14 4660". This product is packaged in a black plastic 3.5 gram packet. Each packet contains one eye mask. The batch code stamp is found on the back of the packet. The affected batch is contaminated with mold. Neither Health Canada nor Diamond Wipes International has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. Approximately 814 units were distributed across Canada and approximately 21,786 units were distributed in the United States. The affected Eye Mask was manufactured in the United States and distributed in Canada between Dec. 1, 2014 and Dec. 16, 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Diamond Wipes International Chino California United States Retailer Forever 21 Various stores in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact Diamond Wipes for an exchange or refund. EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Chancery Court Has Jurisdiction of Virtus Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The complaint VIRTUS CAPITAL L.P. v. EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, C.A. NO. 9808-VCL (Del. Chan.), alleges that Martin D. Sass breached his duty of loyalty by causing Sterling Chemicals, Inc., to be sold at a fire-sale price to alleviate a liquidity crisis that Mr. Sass was facing at his investment funds. The complaint also alleges that Eastman Chemical Company, the acquirer, aided and abetted Mr. Sass' breaches of fiduciary duty by exploiting the conflicts of interest that Mr. Sass faced. Mr. Sass controlled Sterling Chemicals. None of the defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Mr. Sass moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), arguing that the Court of Chancery of Delaware lacks personal jurisdiction over him. So has one of the entities through which he controlled Sterling: the M.D. Sass Associates, Inc. Employee Profit Sharing Plan (the "Sass Plan"). In a Feb. 11, 2015 Memorandum Opinion available at http://is.gd/G6liITfrom Leagle.com, Vice Chancellor Laster held that, "Because the defendants engaged in acts within the State of Delaware and purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of Delaware law, this court has jurisdiction over Sass and the Sass Plan." Thus, the Rule 12(b)(2) motions are denied, the judge rules. The complaint is captioned VIRTUS CAPITAL L.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, JOHN L. TEEGER, JOHN V. GENOVA, RICHARD K. CRUMP, JOHN W. GILDEA, PHILIP M. SIVIN, KARL W. SCHWARZFELD, DANIEL M. FISHBANE, WALTER TREYBIG, MARTIN D. SASS, M.D. SASS INVESTORS SERVICES, INC., RESURGENCE ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., RE/ENTERPRISE ASSET MANAGEMENT L.L.C., RESURGENCE ASSET MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., CORPORATE RESURGENCE PARTNERS, L.L.C., CORPORATE RESURGENCE PARTNERS II, L.L.C., M.D. SASS CORPORATE RESURGENCE PARTNERS III, L.P., RESURGENCE ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN, TRUST "O" FOR A PORTION OF THE ASSETS OF THE KODAK RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN, KODAK PENSION PLAN, M.D. SASS ASSOCIATES, INC. EMPLOYEE PROFIT SHARING PLAN, M.D. SASS RE/ENTERPRISE PORTFOLIO COMPANY, L.P., M.D. SASS RE/ENTERPRISE II, L.P., RESURGENCE PARALLEL FUND, L.L.C., RESURGENCE PARALLEL FUND II, L.L.C., RESURGENCE PARALLEL FUND III, L.L.C., EASTMAN TC, INC., AND MOELIS & COMPANY LLC, Defendants. Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, Benjamin P. Chapple, FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Plaintiff. T. Brad Davey, J. Matthew Belger, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Barry S. Pollack, POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP, Boston, Massachusetts; Attorneys for Defendants Martin D. Sass, MD. Sass Associates, Inc. Employee Profit Sharing Plan, MD. Sass Investor Services, Inc., Resurgence Asset Management, L.L.C., and RE/Enterprise Asset Management L.L.C. A. Thompson Bayliss, Adam K. Schulman, ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Defendant John V. Genova. Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Kevin M. Coen, Frank R. Martin, Brendan W. Sullivan, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Defendants Eastman Chemical Company, and Eastman TC, Inc. Lewis H. Lazarus, Brett M. McCartney, Patricia A. Winston, MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Defendants John L. Teeger, Richard K Crump, and John W. Gildea. Rolin P. Bissell, Paul J. Loughman, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Paul D. Flack, Reagan D. Pratt, PRATT & FLACK LLP, Houston, Texas; Attorneys for Defendant Walter B. Treybig. Gregory P. Williams, Susan M. Hannigan, J. Scott Pritchard, RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Yosef J. Reimer, Matthew Solum, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys for Defendants Philip M Sivin, Karl W. Schwarzfeld, and Daniel M Fishbane. David E. Ross, S. Michael Sirkin, SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; William Savitt, Benjamin D. Klein, WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, New York, New York; Attorneys for Defendant Moelis & Company LLC. EL TORO: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Tapia and Lillian Yanes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. El Toro Bravo # 1 Corp. d/b/a El Toro Bravo, Gonzalo Levya and Diana Levya, Case No. 1:15-cv-00770 (E.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 bar and restaurant located at 88- 12/10 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York, 11372. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com EMILY HOME: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justina Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals v. Emily Home Care, Inc., a Florida profit corporation and Graciela Ricardo, Case No. 1:15-cv-20591 (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Emily Home Care, Inc. is a Florida Profit corporation that provides in-home care services in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq. Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com agp@rgpattorneys.com ESCAPE MEDIA: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement -------------------------------------------------------------- Beach Road Music LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Escape Media Group, Inc., Samuel Tarantino, and Joshua Greenberg, Case No. 3:15-cv-00702 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendants reproduced, distributed, or performed Pre-1972 Recordings on Grooveshark without paying royalties or licensing fees to the recordings' owners. Escape Media Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a service that streams music to consumers known as Grooveshark. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Bruce J. Wecker, Esq. Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery St. San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com bwecker@hausfeld.com scho@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com ngiddings@hausfeld.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Hearing Today on Summary Judgment Motion ---------------------------------------------------------- Extreme Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed in a class action lawsuit will be heard on February 26, 2015. On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and two other defendants. The complaint alleges that Enterasys and its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a. Unbridled Information Technologies ("Subcontractor"), violated Kentucky's wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the "Act") on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky government agencies since January 2010. Plaintiffs also allege common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although there was no quantified amount identified. One of the defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC ("IFS"), has also filed a cross-claim against Enterasys. The Company denies the claims and filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on April 16, 2014. In addition, the Company filed a cross-claim for indemnity against IFS. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 26, 2014, in which they named Commonwealth of Kentucky's Office of Technology under the State's Finance and Administration Cabinet ("COT") as a defendant. The Company filed an answer to the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint on October 10, 2014. COT then filed a motion to dismiss COT as a defendant in this lawsuit and the court granted COT's motion. Although this litigation is in the discovery stage, Plaintiffs have filed a motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication, which will be heard on February 26, 2015, on the issue of whether the work performed by the defendants constitutes "construction" under the Act. The Company will vigorously oppose this motion. This litigation is in the early stages of discovery. FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Provides Update on Truck Stop Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- FleetCor Technologies, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that in March and April 2007, six independent-truck stops located in several states filed nearly identical complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Ceridian and its wholly- owned subsidiary, Comdata, alleging anticompetitive conduct with respect to Comdata's trucker fleet card and point-of-sale systems businesses in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which later were consolidated into a single action. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action sought certification of a class of independent truck stops and other retail fueling merchants and requested damages described by plaintiffs as the overcharges they and other members of the putative class paid to Comdata on certain payment card transactions, trebled, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, and the costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. In April 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to rejoin Ceridian to the case to add as defendants Pilot Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers, Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Petro Stopping Centers (now owned by TravelCenters of America), and TravelCenters of America. While that motion was pending, the plaintiffs filed a separate action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against those entities, which was consolidated in March 2010 with the pending case against Comdata. Because of the significant costs and uncertainties of this class action antitrust litigation, and based on the recommendation of outside counsel to Ceridian and Comdata, in December 2013, the Boards of Directors of Ceridian and Comdata authorized settlement of this litigation. Under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding among plaintiffs, Ceridian and Comdata, signed on December 31, 2013, and a definitive Settlement Agreement, signed March 3, 2014, which was preliminarily approved by the court on March 17, 2014, we have agreed to make a one-time cash payment of $100.0 million as part of a $130.0 million global settlement with all other defendants, and to provide certain prospective relief with respect to specific provisions in its merchant agreements. Comdata recorded a $100.0 million expense in December 2013 and deposited the $100.0 million payment into escrow on March 24, 2014. The escrow deposit is included in restricted cash on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The payment was funded through the use of available capacity on the accounts receivables facility. On April 14, 2014, notices and claim forms were sent to potential class members. Publication notice was made as well. Class members had until May 27, 2014, to object to the settlement or to opt out entirely. The fairness hearing was scheduled for July 14, 2014. Comdata said, "If finally approved by the court, and provided that all other conditions to the settlement have been satisfied, the settlement agreement will provide Comdata and affiliated companies, including its parent, Ceridian, with a broad release of claims and will limit exposure to legal claims by merchants who do not timely exclude themselves from the settlement. If the settlement is not approved by the court, or if the other conditions to the settlement have not been satisfied or waived, the Company believes that the plaintiffs will recommence this litigation." FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Update on Merchant Class Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- FleetCor Technologies, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that in 2005, numerous U.S. merchant retailers filed suit against MasterCard, Visa, and several U.S. financial institutions alleging that Visa and MasterCard colluded directly and indirectly through banks issuing their credit cards to keep merchants from mitigating credit card costs. On July 13, 2012, the defendants agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the U.S. merchant class litigation. The parties then presented a proposed settlement agreement to the court for approval. On November 27, 2012, the court awarded preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and enjoined members of the settlement class from "challenging in any action . . . any matter covered by the Class Settlement Agreement or its release . . . provisions." Later, that same day, the ten objecting plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. One of the settlement terms provides that U.S. merchant class members will receive a 10 basis point reduction in credit interchange rates for eight months ("Interchange Rate Relief"). MasterCard began implementing the Interchange Rate Relief by withholding this amount from U.S. issuers of its credit cards on July 29, 2013. Another term of the settlement allows merchants, under defined circumstances, to charge a surcharge fee to cardholders. This term went into effect on January 27, 2013. Final approval of the settlement was entered by the court on December 13, 2013, and appeals from that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have been filed by numerous merchants. No briefing schedule has been set yet. Comdata is not a MasterCard issuer, but is a member service provider and has contractual relationships with MasterCard and with the issuing bank for the Comdata MasterCard products. As a member service provider, the Company does receive benefit of the gross interchange charged to merchants who accept the Comdata MasterCard, and therefore, the Interchange Rate Relief reduced the amount collected from July 29, 2013 to March 29, 2014. Neither Comdata, nor the Comdata issuing bank, were named defendants in the merchant class litigation. Comdata has reviewed the settlement agreement, as well as the procedural posture of the litigation, in light of its status as a member service provider and its contractual relationships with MasterCard, the issuing bank and its customers to assess the level of potential liability specific to the proposed Interchange Rate Relief. The Company recorded $8.0 million for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2012 in other operating expense in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss due to its status as a member service provider. FORD MOTOR: Recalls 9,956 MKS Cars Due to Door Handle Woes ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 9956 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015035 TC ID number: 2015035 Manufacturer recall number: 15S02 On certain vehicles, the return spring within the interior door handle assembly could become unseated, resulting in an interior handle that does not return to the fully stowed position after actuation. This could allow a door to unlatch during a side impact crash, which could increase the risk of injury to a seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will inspect, and repair or replace the interior handles as necessary. Affected products: 2011 Lincoln MKS FORD MOTOR: Recalls 7 Ranger Trucks Due to Airbag Problem --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Service Campaign Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 7 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015054 TC ID number: 2015054 Manufacturer recall number: 14S28 Ford Canada is conducting a voluntary Safety Improvement Program involving driver and passenger airbag inflators certain vehicles that were originally sold or ever registered in certain high humidity areas of the United States equipped with Takata airbags. Ford will replace the driver or passenger inflator on affected vehicles, depending on the vehicle involved. Owners who believe their vehicles may have been originally purchased or registered in the states of Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands should contact a Ford dealer. This action is not being conducted under the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Affected products: 2003 Ford Ranger FORENSIC COUNSELORS: "Carr" Suit Remanded to State Court -------------------------------------------------------- Clark Carr, et al. v. National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc., et al. Case No. CV 14-8761-JFW (JCX) (C.D. Cal.), goes back to state court where it was originally filed, according to a ruling by District Judge John F. Walter of the Central District of California. Carr filed the suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons against the defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges that defendants provided alcohol and drug counselor certifications to individuals in California and fraudulently represented that their certifications were nationally recognized when in fact the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs never authorized any of the defendants to certify alcohol and drug counselors. Plaintiff alleges consumer fraud and unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., fraudulent and false advertising, California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 et seq., and fraud. On November 12, 2014, defendants filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b) alleging that the federal district court for the Central District of California had jurisdiction over the subject matter. On November 20, 2014, defendants filed a Supplement to Notice of Removal Concerning Amount in Controversy. In the Second Notice of Removal, the defendants allege that the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) (CAFA). Plaintiff argues that the Second Notice of Removal is improper. Defendants National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. and American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors, d/b/a American College of Certified Forensic Counselors (Entity defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the case or in the alternative transfer the same, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 12(b) and 13(a). On December 4, 2014, defendants Francis Deisler and Karla Deisler Taylor (Individual defendants) filed a motion to dismiss. On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed Motion for Remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1447, and for Attorneys' Fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447. According to Judge Walter, Plaintiff's motion for remand is granted and the action is remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is denied and the entity defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss are denied as moot. A copy of Judge Walter's order dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/iq39z8from Leagle.com. Clark Carr, Plaintiff, represented by David C Scheper -- dscheper@scheperkim.com -- Margaret E Dayton -- pdayton@scheperkim.com -- William H Forman -- wforman@scheperkim.com -- at Scheper Kim and Harris LLP Defendants, represented by Steven Alan Fink -- sfink@stevefinklaw.com -- at Law Offices of Steven Fink; David R Keesling -- David@KLGattorneys.com -- at Keesling Law Group PLLC FOREST LABORATORIES: 1st Cir. Affirms "Marcus" Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: CELEXA AND LEXAPRO MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. RANDY and BONNIE MARCUS, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. FOREST LABORATORIES, INC. and FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants, Appellees, NO. 14-1290, an appeal arose out of this putative class action against Forest Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Lexapro, an antidepressant medication. Plaintiffs claim that Lexapro's FDA-approved drug label misleads California consumers by omitting material efficacy information, in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq., False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq., and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. The district court dismissed these claims, finding them barred by California's safe harbor doctrine. Expressing no view on the California safe harbor doctrine's applicability, the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit on February 20, 2015, found that federal law impliedly preempts these claims because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. Section 301 et seq., prohibits Forest from independently changing its FDA-approved label as plaintiffs claim California law requires. The Appeals Court, therefore, affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/AAP2NIfrom Leagle.com. R. Brent Wisner, with whom Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C. and Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP were on brief, for appellant. Edwin G. Schallert, with whom Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C. were on brief, for appellee. GE DEALER: DBTCA Reviewing Newly-Filed Pleadings ------------------------------------------------ GE Dealer Floorplan Master Note Trust said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA"), as indenture trustee, has provided the following information to CDF Funding, Inc. for inclusion in this Form 10-D: DBTCA has been named as a defendant in civil litigation concerning its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors ("Plaintiff Investors") filed a civil action against DBTCA and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBTCA's and DBNTC's alleged failure to perform their obligations as trustees for the trusts (the "NY Derivative Action"). An amended complaint was filed on July 16, 2014, adding Plaintiff Investors and RMBS trusts to the NY Derivative Action. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff Investors moved to voluntarily dismiss the NY Derivative Action without prejudice. Also on November 24, 2014, substantially the same group of Plaintiff Investors filed a civil action against DBTCA and DBNTC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Action"), making substantially the same allegations as the NY Derivative Action with respect to 564 RMBS trusts (542 of which were at issue in the NY Derivative Action). The SDNY Action is styled both as a derivative action on behalf of the named RMBS trusts and, in the alternative, as a putative class action on behalf of holders of RMBS representing interests in those RMBS trusts. DBTCA is reviewing these newly-filed pleadings. DBTCA has no pending legal proceedings that would materially affect its ability to perform its duties as indenture trustee on behalf of the noteholders. GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Barros" Injury Suit to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit captioned Barros v. General Motors, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 15-CA-000125, was removed from the Circuit Court of the 20th Florida Judicial Circuit in Lee County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00101-SPC-DNF to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the Chevrolet Cobalt losing control, Raymond Santiago, Jr., suffered serious significant serious personal injuries resulting in his death. Mr. Barros was Virgenmina Barros' son. Cobalt was designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed by GM. GM has admitted having faulty air bag systems and ignition switch problems in many of its vehicles, including Cobalt. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Lewis Beckman, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334-3933 Facsimile: (239) 334-7105 E-mail: michael@vilesandbeckman.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian Baggot, Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA 100 N Tampa St., Suite 2000 PO Box 3390 Tampa, FL 33601-3390 Telephone: (813) 223-4253 Facsimile: (813) 221-4752 E-mail: bbaggot@rumberger.com GENERAL MOTORS: Removes "Unseul" Suit to Florida District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Unseul v. General Motors, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 15-CA-0000058, was removed from the Circuit Court of the 20th Florida Judicial Circuit in Lee County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00102- JES-CM to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that as a direct and proximate result of the Chevrolet Cobalt losing control, Amos Joseph, suffered serious significant serious personal injuries resulting in his death. Mr. Joseph was Jeanette Unseul's son. Cobalt was designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed by GM. GM has admitted having faulty air bag systems and ignition switch problems in many of its vehicles, including Cobalt. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Lewis Beckman, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334-3933 Facsimile: (239) 334-7105 E-mail: michael@vilesandbeckman.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian Baggot, Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA 100 N Tampa St., Suite 2000 PO Box 3390 Tampa, FL 33601-3390 Telephone: (813) 223-4253 Facsimile: (813) 221-4752 E-mail: bbaggot@rumberger.com GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Acadia Model ------------------------------------ Starting date: January 27, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Tire Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Tires Units affected: 411 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015033 TC ID number: 2015033 Manufacturer recall number: 15025 Certain vehicles may be equipped with tires that may not comply with Canadian Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Regulations. During the inspection phase of routine tire compliance testing, cracks were observed in the tire's tread. This is contrary to the requirements of the standard. This could result in tire noise, ride vibration and/or tread chunking. Tires operated in this condition could be at greater risk of failure, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace affected tires. Affected products: 2015 GMC Acadia GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Malibu, Malibu MAXX and G6 Models --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety TC System: Steering Units affected: 9675 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015048 TC ID number: 2015048 Manufacturer recall number: 14772 Certain vehicles equipped with electric power steering may experience a sudden loss of power steering assist that could occur at any time while driving. If the power steering assist is lost, a message is displayed on the Driver Information Centre and a chime sounds to inform the driver. Steering control can be maintained, as the vehicle will revert to a manual steering mode, but will require greater driver effort. The sudden change in steering may increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Dealers will replace the torque sensor assembly with a redesigned one. Note: This recall is an expansion of recalls 2012-331 and 2014-104. Vehicles having already been repaired under the previous campaigns do not require re-inspection. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- CHEVROLET MALIBU 2006 CHEVROLET MALIBU MAXX 2006 PONTIAC G6 2006 GERON CORP: Dismissal Bid in "Patel" Suit to be Heard April 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing will be convened on April 10, 2015, in California district court to consider Geron Corp's Motion to Dismiss an amended class action complaint by lead plaintiff Vinod Patel. The new hearing date was stipulated by the parties. The hearing was originally scheduled for March 6, 2015. Geron Corp. has until Feb. 27 to file and serve their Reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss. A copy of the Feb. 11, 2015 stipulation order is available at http://is.gd/fqZhgjfrom Leagle.com. The case is IN RE GERON CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE NO. 14-CV-01224-CRB (N.D. Cal.). COOLEY LLP, JOHN C. DWYER, BRETT DE JARNETTE, Palo Alto, CA. COOLEY LLP, RYAN E. BLAIR, San Diego, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Geron Corporation, John A. Scarlett, Olivia K. Bloom, and Stephen M. Kelsey. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP, DAVID E. BOWER, RICHARD W. GONNELLO, MEGAN M. SULLIVAN, Richard W. Gonnello (Pro Hac Vice) Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Vinod Patel. GOURMET TRADING: Recalls Frontier Soup Mushroom Barley Soup ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 6, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Labeling Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Gourmet Trading Company Ltd. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9626 Affected products: 113 g. Frontier Soups Mushroom Barley Soup Mix with Lot GTPA3393, Best Before 08/29/2016 and Lot GTPA3604, Best Before 11/06/2016 GROUPON INC: 9th Cir. Vacates Approval of Accord and Remands Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In In re: GROUPON MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, ANTHONY FERREIRA; HEATHER KIMEL; BRIAN ZARD; SARAH GOSLING; ASHLEY CHRISTENSEN; WILLIAM EIDENMULLER; JASON COHEN; CARLOS VAZQUEZ; ELI R. JOHNSON; JULIE BUCKLEY; SARAH MEHEL; NEVIN BOOTH; BARRIE ARLISS; JEFF LAWRIE; MICHAEL MCPHERSON; ERIC TERRELL; KENNETH HINTON; E.G. JOHNSON; NICHOLAS SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PADRAIGIN BROWNE, Objector-Appellant, v. GROUPON, INC.; NORDSTROM INC.; FUN TIME, LLC, DBA Wheel Fun Rentals; YMCA OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON; WHIRLY WEST INC., DBA WhirlyBall; SPA BLIX, INC., a Washington corporation; FULL CIRCLE FARMS, INC., a Washington corporation; CHARLES RIVERBOAT COMPANY, INC.; BEAUTY & BLISS, LLC; THE GAP, INC., Defendants-Appellees. In re: GROUPON MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, ANTHONY FERREIRA; HEATHER KIMEL; BRIAN ZARD; SARAH GOSLING; ASHLEY CHRISTENSEN; WILLIAM EIDENMULLER; JASON COHEN; CARLOS VAZQUEZ; ELI R. JOHNSON; JULIE BUCKLEY; SARAH MEHEL; NEVIN BOOTH; BARRIE ARLISS; JEFF LAWRIE; MICHAEL MCPHERSON; ERIC TERRELL; KENNETH HINTON; E.G. JOHNSON; NICHOLAS SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SEAN HULL, Objector-Appellant, v. GROUPON, INC.; NORDSTROM INC.; FUN TIME, LLC, DBA Wheel Fun Rentals; YMCA OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON; WHIRLY WEST INC., DBA WhirlyBall; SPA BLIX, INC., a Washington corporation; FULL CIRCLE FARMS, INC., a Washington corporation; CHARLES RIVERBOAT COMPANY, INC.; BEAUTY & BLISS, LLC; THE GAP, INC., Defendants-Appellees, NOS. 13-55118, 13-55128, a dispute arose from the district court's approval of a class action settlement between Defendants-Appellees Groupon and other merchants (Groupon) and a nationwide class of customers (collectively, the settling parties). On appeal, Objectors-Appellants Sean Hull and Padraigin Browne contend that notice of the settlement was inadequate, and that the district court made several errors when it approved the settlement and awarded attorneys' fees to class counsel. In a memorandum entered February 19, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit stated, "Mindful of the high procedural standard that we have set for settlements that, like the one at issue here, occur before certification of the class, we vacate approval and remand to the district court so that it can conduct a "more searching inquiry into the fairness of the negotiated distribution of funds, as well as consider the substantive reasonableness of the attorneys' fee request in light of the degree of success attained."" On remand, the parties and the district court may explore the extent to which values may be quantified by reference to factual or expert testimony, or reliably bounded within a specific range of values that are expected, or illustrated by proxy evidence. After appropriately supplementing the record, the district court may exercise its discretion to reapprove the settlement and class counsels' fee, reapprove the settlement but modify class counsels' fee, to disapprove the settlement, or take other appropriate actions depending on its inquiry, findings, and evaluation of whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Ninth Circuit concluded. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/h9PD5Ifrom Leagle.com GRUMA CORP: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Matos Hernandez v. Gruma Corporation Pueblo a/k/a Mission Food Pueblo, Case No. 3:15-cv-00541-D (N.D. Tex., February 17, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq. Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. J H ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com josh.a.petersen@gmail.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Class Action Related to Overdraft Fees Settled ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that American Savings Bank, F.S.B. (American), a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (NYSE - HE), reported that fourth quarter 2014 net income of $12.0 million was $1.2 million lower than the linked quarter and $0.2 million lower than the same quarter of 2013. Compared to the linked quarter of 2014, the $1.2 million decline was primarily driven by the following on an after- tax basis: * $1 million higher noninterest expense largely attributable to the settlement of a purported class action lawsuit related to overdraft fees on debit card transactions and costs related to the strategic designation of a new corporate campus in Honolulu; and * $1 million higher provision for loan losses related to loan growth in the quarter. HEARTLAND: Recalls Big Horn and Big Country Model Trailers ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 8 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015046 TC ID number: 2015046 Manufacturer recall number: 99-01-19 On certain fifth wheel trailers, the axles may have been installed too far forward, which could affect weight distribution. Incorrectly distributed trailer weight could adversely affect vehicle stability and potentially cause an uncontrolled swaying motion, which could result in a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Heartland will either relocate the axles rearward, or install a ballast to the pin box and upgrade the axles to offset the increased ballast, depending on the model involved. Each trailer will also be weighed and tire, axle and cargo capacity labels bearing updated information will be applied. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- HEARTLAND BIG HORN 2015 HEARTLAND BIG COUNTRY 2015 HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Wilkerson" Suit Alleging EFTA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keisha Wilkerson, Individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-00324-NYW (D. Colo., February 17, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq. MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 6565 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 410 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Telephone: (323) 940-1700 Facsimile: (323) 238-8095 E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: 2012 Class Action Still in Early Stage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hyperdynamics 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 a class action filed on April 2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is the early stage. "On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us and our chief executive officer alleging that we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock prices," the Company said. "The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of our drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic of Guinea. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although several lead plaintiffs were appointed by the Court and then withdrew from the matter, a lead plaintiff has now been appointed and a scheduling order governing briefing on a motion to dismiss has been entered by the Court." "On May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint ading our current and former chief financial officers as defendants, and defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 11, 2014. On August 20, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a response to our motion to dismiss, and we filed our reply on September 19, 2014. "We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of this dispute, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations." HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: Motion to Consolidate Suits Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ Hyperdynamics 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 lead plaintiff in an April 2012 lawsuit filed a motion to consolidate the March 2014 class action cases with the earlier case. "Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us and several officers of the Company alleging that we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock prices," the Company said. "The lawsuits allege, among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes and that we lacked adequate internal controls. The lawsuits seek damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not specified. On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, which remains pending. Also, on May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff in the April 2012 lawsuit filed a motion to consolidate the March 2014 cases with the earlier case. The parties await a ruling on the motion to consolidate. "In addition to these lawsuits, we have received demands from stockholders to inspect our books and records; however, no proceedings have been initiated. We have assessed the status of these matters and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of these disputes, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations." IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tolzoh Katzburg, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00811- ENV-LB (E.D.N.Y., February 17, 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 INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Trial Ct. Ruling in Marine Case Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Marine, a truck driver employed by defendant Interstate Distributor Co. (Interstate), filed a putative class action alleging Interstate failed to comply with California meal and break period regulations. Following certification of a class consisting of all Interstate drivers on exclusively intrastate routes, the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings to Interstate, concluding Marine's claims were preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. Section 14501 et seq.; Act). Marine argued the trial court erred in concluding his claims were preempted by the Act. Relying primarily on state and federal appellate court decisions rendered after entry of the trial court's order, the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One reversed the judgment of the trial court and the finding of preemption. The Calif. Appeals Court remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision. The case is MARTIN MARINE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR CO., Defendant and Respondent, NO. A138658. A copy of Calif. Appeals Court's February 20, 2015 opinion is available at http://is.gd/CseYhffrom Leagle.com. INVENSENSE INC: Faces 3 Class Action Complaints ----------------------------------------------- InvenSense, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that a purported shareholder filed on January 7, 2015, a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two of the Company's current and former executives (the "Securities Case"). Jim McMillan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business results between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. A second complaint, William Lendales v. InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, was filed on January 12, 2015, by a different purported shareholder, in the same court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. A third complaint, Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Civil Action No 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, was filed on January 16, 2015, by a different purported shareholder, in the same court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. The Company has undertaken an evaluation of these complaints. A fourth complaint, William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, was filed on January 29, 2015, by a different purported shareholder, in the same court, setting forth substantially the same allegations. JB'S SAUSAGE: Recalls Chicken Breading Due to Undeclared Soy ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: JB's Sausage Maker Supplies Ltd. Distribution: Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9583 Affected products: 1 kg. JB's Sausage Supplies Chicken Breading with all codes where soy and wheat are not declared on the label KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces "Gross" Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kansas City Southern still faces the securities class action styled as Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On April 15, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The securities class action is styled as Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14-cv-00345- BCW. On April 16, 2014, the first of two shareholder derivative actions purportedly brought on behalf of the Company (which is named as a "nominal defendant") was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers. The first derivative action is styled as Webster v. Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00349-BCW. The second derivative action was filed on June 6, 2014, and is styled as Lerner v. Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00509-BCW. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company made misrepresentations or omitted to disclose certain facts in connection with its volume guidance for fiscal year 2013. The complaints seek unspecified damages and equitable relief. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not believe that, when resolved, these disputes will have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements. However, an adverse resolution could have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements. KIDDE: Recalls Plastic Valve Disposable Fire Extinguishers ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 6, 2015 Posting date: February 6, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43609 The recall involves Kidde and Garrison branded black plastic Zytel Nylon valve disposable fire extinguishers manufactured between July 23, 2013 and Oct. 15, 2014. The affected fire extinguishers are white or red in color and are either ABC or BC-rated. The Kidde or Garrison logo and serial number are located on the nameplate. The date code is an ink jet 10-digit number stamped on the side of the cylinder near the bottom. Digits 5-9 of this number convey the day and year of manufacture. Affected units will have these five digits in a date code: 2013: XXXX20413X through XXXX36513X, 2014: XXXX00114X through XXXX28814X. The models are: Description Model Number UPC ----------- ------------ --- Kidde 1A 10BC E110, FULL HOME 110 047871662968 Kidde 1A 10BCW E110, FULL HOME 110 047871661497 Kidde 2A 10BC FX210 047871071708 Garrison 2A 10BC 46-0066-6 047871074044 Garrison 5BC 46-0092-2 047871074020 Kidde 5BC E5, M5C, BC5GD 047871662944 Kidde 5BCW E5, M5C, BC5GD 047871661787 Kidde 10BC ELITE 10, ELITE 10 HOME, E10, E10H 047871662951 Kidde FC110 E110, FULL HOME 110 047871680290 The disposable fire extinguishers may not fully discharge as designed when the lever is pressed and released multiple times. This defect is caused by an out-of-specification valve component. Neither Kidde Canada nor Health Canada has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Approximately 175,000 units were sold in Canada at various retailers. The affected fire extinguishers were manufactured in Mexico and sold between August 2013 and November 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Kidde Matamoros, S. de R.L. de C.V. Tamps Mexico Distributor Walter Kidde Portable Equipment Company, Inc. Mebane North Carolina United States Customers should immediately check the date code and model number on their plastic valve disposable fire extinguishers to determine if any of their devices are included in the recall. If so, consumers should contact Kidde Canada for a free replacement. LEUCADIA NATIONAL: March 25 Hearing on Shareholder Suit Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, that on January 16, 2015, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") reflecting the previously disclosed terms of the settlement of the consolidated stockholder class action, entitled In re Jefferies Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 8059- CB, relating to the March 1, 2013 transaction through which Jefferies Group LLC became the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary. "While we and the other defendants continue to deny each of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, we agreed to the settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation and to avoid further distractions to our management. The terms of the settlement agreement are subject to court approval, the hearing date for which is March 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at the Delaware Court of Chancery," the Company said. MACK: Recalls CXU Model Over Air Brake System Problems ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: January 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 10 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015044 TC ID number: 2015044 Manufacturer recall number: SC0389 Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems. These vehicles were built with insufficient air tank reserve capacity, which may provide an insufficient air supply to properly operate the brakes during repetitive brake applications. This may result in reduced braking performance which could result in a vehicle crash. Correction: Dealers will install a bigger air tank to increase air reservoir capacity. Affected products: 2014 MACK CXU MACK: Recalls LEU Model Due to Defective Door Latches ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 56 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015045 TC ID number: 2015045 Manufacturer recall number: SC0388 On certain vehicles, the door latches may fail and prevent the driver and/or passenger from opening the door from inside the cab. If this were to occur, the driver and/or passenger(s) may not be able to quickly exit the vehicle in an emergency, which could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace affected door latches. Affected products: 2015 Mack Leu MACK: Recalls CXU Model Due to Defective Air Brake Systems ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 10 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015044 TC ID number: 2015044 Manufacturer recall number: SC0389 Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems. These vehicles were built with insufficient air tank reserve capacity, which may provide an insufficient air supply to properly operate the brakes during repetitive brake applications. This may result in reduced braking performance which could result in a vehicle crash. Correction: Dealers will install a bigger air tank to increase air reservoir capacity. Affected products: 2014 MACK CXU MANAC: Recalls Semi-Trailer Model Due to Possible Brake Drag ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: January 30, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Heavy Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 169 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015043 TC ID number: 2015043 On certain vehicles, brake chamber diaphragm(s) may not be properly seated. This could lead to brake drag, causing brake overheating or unintended spring brake application. These issues could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will affect repairs as necessary. Affected products Makes and models affected: 2015 Manac Semi-Trailer MCKESSON CORP: Received Share of Class Action Settlements --------------------------------------------------------- McKesson 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 Distribution Solutions segment's gross profit increased in the third quarter and first nine months of 2015 primarily due to the Company's acquisition of Celesio and growth in its other Distribution Solutions businesses. "Gross profit margin increased in 2015 primarily due to our acquisition of Celesio and higher buy margin reflecting higher volume and price increases of pharmaceutical products. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in sell margin primarily driven by higher sales volume and the increased sales associated with the recently launched drugs for the treatment of Hepatitis C, which have lower margins. The gross profit margin for the third quarter and first nine months of 2014 was favorably affected by the receipt of $27 million and $34 million, representing our share of settlements of antitrust class action lawsuits brought against drug manufacturers," the Company said. MEL S. HARRIS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling in Sykes Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated appeals are taken from the September 4, 2012 class certification opinion in Sykes v. Mel Harris & Assocs., LLC, 285 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Sykes II"), and March 28, 2013 class certification order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants in this case comprise three entities: "(1) various subsidiaries of Leucadia National Corporation (Leucadia) that purchase and collect consumer debt; (2) Mel S. Harris and Associates LLC (Mel Harris), a law firm specializing in debt collection litigation; [and] (3) Samserv, Inc. (Samserv), a process service company." Defendants also include "associates of each of the foregoing entities," id., and which are respectively referred to as the Leucadia defendants, Mel Harris defendants, and Samserv defendants. The district court's March 28, 2013 order certified two classes. The first class, certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, comprises "all persons who have been or will be sued by the Mel Harris defendants as counsel for the Leucadia defendants . . . assert[ing] claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. [Section] 1961; New York General Business Law (GBL) [Section] 349; and New York Judiciary Law [Secion] 487." The second class, certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, comprised "all persons who have been sued by the Mel Harris defendants as counsel for the Leucadia defendants in . . . New York City Civil Court and where a default judgment has been obtained. Plaintiffs in the Rule 23(b)(3) class assert claims under RICO; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [(FDCPA)], 15 U.S.C. [Section] 1692; GBL [Section] 349; and New York Judiciary Law [Section] 487." The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in an order entered February 10, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/gQBdQxfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the class certification saying the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying either class. The case is MONIQUE SYKES, REA VEERABADREN, KELVIN PEREZ, CLIFTON ARMOOGAM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MEL S. HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES LLC, MEL S. HARRIS, TODD FABACHER, MICHAEL YOUNG, KERRY LUTZ, ESQ., LR CREDIT 18, LLC, L-CREDIT, LLC, LEUCADIA NATIONAL CORPORATION, LR CREDIT, LLC, LR CREDIT 10, LLC, SAMSERV, INC., WILLIAM MLOTOK, BENJAMIN LAMB, DAVID WALDMAN, JOSEPH A. ORLANDO, MICHAEL MOSQUERA, JOHN ANDINO, LR CREDIT 14, LLC, LR CREDIT 21, LLC, PHILIP M. CANNELLA, Defendants-Appellants, DOCKET NOS. 13- 2742-CV, 13-2747-CV, 13-2748-CV. PAUL D. CLEMENT, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC (Candice Chiu, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC; James R. Asperger and Maria Ginzburg, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY; Marc A. Becker, London, UK; Brett A. Scher, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck LLP, Woodbury, NY, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants Mel S. Harris LLC, Mel S. Harris, Michael Young, David Waldman, Kerry Lutz, and Todd Fabacher. MIGUEL A. ESTRADA, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC (Scott P. Martin, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC; Michael Zimmerman, Zimmerman Jones Booher LLC, Salt Lake City, UT; Lewis H. Goldfarb and Adam R. Schwartz, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpetner LLP, Morristown, NJ; Mark D. Harris, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants Leucadia National Corporation, L-Credit, LLC, LR Credit, LLC, LR Credit 10, LLC, LR Credit 14, LLC, LR Credit 18, LLC, LR Credit 21, LLC, Joseph A. Orlando, and Philip M. Cannella. JACK BABCHIK, Babchik & Young LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendants-Appellants Samserv, Inc., William Mlotok, Benjamin Lamb, Michael Mosquera, and John Andino. MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York, NY (Jonathan S. Abady, Debra L. Greenberger and Vasudha Talla, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York, NY; Josh Zinner, Susan Shin and Claudia Wilner, New Economy Project, New York, NY; Carolyn E. Coffey and Ariana Lindermayer, of counsel to Jeanette Zelhoff, MFY Legal Services, New York, NY; Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Harvard Law School, Boston, MA, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees. JEAN CONSTANTINE-DAVIS, AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington, DC, on behalf of Amici Curiae AARP, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and National Consumer Law Center, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. DANIELLE F. TARANTOLO, New York Legal Assistance Group, New York, NY, on behalf of Amicus Curiae Consumer Advocates, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. SARANG VIJAY DAMLE, Senior Counsel, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, DC (Meredith Fuchs, General Counsel, To-Quyen Truong, Deputy General Counsel, David M. Gossett, Assistant General Counsel, Jessica Rank Divine, Attorney, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, DC; Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, General Counsel, John F. Daly, Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, Theodore (Jack) Metzler, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, on the brief), on behalf of Amici Curiae The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Sprinter 2500 and Sprinter 3500 Models ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 6, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 1173 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015055 TC ID number: 2015055 On certain vehicles, the B-pillar may not have been correctly assembled. As a result, the doors could be more difficult to open if the vehicle was involved in a severe frontal collision. This could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect and repair the B-pillar as needed. Affected products: 2015 MERCEDES-BENZ SPRINTER 2500 and 2015 MERCEDES-BENZ SPRINTER 3500 METROPOLITAN TEA: Recalls Flavored Teas Due to Undeclared Milk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: The Metropolitan Tea Company Ltd. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9611 MICROSEMI CORP: Obtains Final Approval of "Williamson" Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy h. Koh granted final approval of a class action settlement in JANE WILLIAMSON and GERALD BEAUCHESNE, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICROSEMI CORP., PETT ACQUISITION CORP., SYMMETRICOM, INC., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:14-CV-01827-LHK, (N.D. Cal.). The Court certified the Class defined as: Any employee of Symmetricom who remained on Symmetricom's payroll as of November 26, 2013 and was a participant in Symmetricom's Incentive Compensation Plan and/or Symmetricom's Success Sharing Plan. The Court confirmed Cliff Palefsky and Scott Stillman of McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky, and Michael Rubin and Eve Cervantez of Altshuler Berzon LLP as Class Counsel. As set forth in more detail in a separate Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Class Representative Incentive Payments, an award of attorneys' fees in the aggregate amount of $587,500-equivalent to 25% of the total Gross Settlement Value -- and for costs and litigation expenses in the aggregate amount of $6,280.07 as final payment for and complete satisfaction of any and all attorneys' fees and costs incurred by and/or owed to Class Counsel is granted. A payment to Dahl Administration, Inc, as Claims Administrator, in the aggregate amount of $14,830.00 is similarly granted. These payments to Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator shall only be made in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement. The Court also approved Named Plaintiffs Williamson and Beauchesne as Class Representatives and grants payment to Ms. Williamson and Mr. Beauchesne of an Enhancement Award in the amount of $5,000 each for their service as Class Representatives. The Court further approved and directed Dahl Administration, Inc., the appointed Claims Administrator, to disburse to these persons and entities, in the manner set forth, the following sums: A. Settlement Class Members, by check, his or her Settlement Class Member Payment as calculated by the Claims Administrator pursuant to Paragraph 92 of the Settlement Stipulation, as modified by the Addendum, within 10 business days of the Effective Date, as defined in Paragraphs 70-74 of the Settlement Stipulation; B. Named Plaintiffs, the sums of $5,000 each by check within 15 business days of the Effective Date, in addition to any Settlement Class Member Payment to which each of them is entitled; C. Altshuler Berzon LLP and McGuinn, HIllsman & Palefsky, jointly, by wire transfer, the total amount of $587,500, for their attorneys' fees and $6,280.97 for their litigation expenses, within 15 business days of the Effective Date; D. As set forth in Paragraph 100, any Residual Amount from Settlement Class Members' uncashed checks, will escheat to the State of that Settlement Class Member's residence. The action is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's February 19, 2015 ruling is available at http://is.gd/ow2cmd from Leagle.com. Jane Williamson, Plaintiff, represented by Cliff Michael Palefsky -- cp@mhpsf.com -- McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky, Eve Hedy Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Scott M Stillman, McGuinn Hillsman Palefsky. Gerald Beauchesne, Plaintiff, represented by Cliff Michael Palefsky McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Scott M Stillman, McGuinn Hillsman Palefsky. Microsemi Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Ashley Brown -- abrown@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Sarah Starcevich Miller -- sstarcevich@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Eric J. Amdursky -- eamdursky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Symmetricom, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam P. KohSweeney, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Ashley Brown, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Sarah Starcevich Miller, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Eric J. Amdursky, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire & Essex Class A Motorhomes ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 3, 2015 Starting date: January 29, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 7 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015041 TC ID number: 2015041 On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release with double check valves, used to control park/spring brake application, the valve may leak internally. This could cause unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will affect repairs. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- NEWMAR KING AIRE MOTORHOME 2014 NEWMAR ESSEX CLASS A MOTORHOME 2014 NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire Class A Motorhome Model ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 5 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015049 TC ID number: 2015049 On certain vehicles, the castle nuts for the steering linkage ball joint fasteners, which mount to the bell cranks, may have been improperly tightened during assembly. If the castle nuts were to come completely loose, the steering linkage may separate from the bell cranks without warning. This could result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the castle nuts, and if necessary, tighten them to the proper specification. Affected products: 2013 Newmar King Aire Class A Motorhome MOONBEAM CAPITAL: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Facilities -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Moonbeam Capital Investments, LLC and Century III Mall PA, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00203 (W.D. Pa., February 13, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' facilities that are not fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs. The Defendants own and operate a retail property known as Century III Mall with headquarter located at 9103 Alta Drive, Suite 204, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. R. Bruce Carlson (PA56657) Stephanie Goldin (PA202865) CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com NISSAN: Recalls Pathfinder, QX60 and Rogue Models ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Wheels Units affected: 80 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015056 TC ID number: 2015056 On certain vehicles, the front hub assembly bolts may not have been tightened to specification. If the bolts were to loosen, the brake caliper could separate from the wheel hub assembly, reducing braking performance and affecting vehicle stability. This could result in an accident causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and torque bolts to specification. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- NISSAN PATHFINDER 2014, 2015 NISSAN ROGUE 2015 INFINITI QX60 2014, 2015 OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiff in "Piechur" Action Files Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Outerwall Inc. 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 plaintiffs in the Laurie Piechur class action filed an appeal on January 7, 2015. The Company said, "In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois." In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of class certification. Redbox has moved to dismiss all remaining claims on mootness grounds, and the Court granted Redbox's motion on December 11, 2014. The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015. "We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate," the Company said. OUTERWALL INC: 7th Circuit Affirmed Ruling in "Boesky" Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Outerwall Inc. 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. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in Redbox's favor in the class action by Blake Boesky. The Company said, "In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable information of consumers for a time period in excess of that allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk." "Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims involving retention of information, holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit for damages under this theory. "On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012, the court dismissed the added retention claims, except to the extent that plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief. On August 16, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in Redbox's favor on all remaining claims, and entered a final judgment for Redbox. On September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On October 23, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in Redbox's favor." PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models --------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 11 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015037 TC ID number: 2015037 Manufacturer recall number: 115B / 15KWA On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release with double check valves, used to control park/spring brake application, the valve may leak internally. This could cause unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will affect repairs. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- KENWORTH T800 2014 PETERBILT 320 2014 KENWORTH T660 2014 KENWORTH K370 2014 PETERBILT 210 2014 PETERBILT 220 2014 KENWORTH K270 2014 KENWORTH T880 2014 PELLA CORP: Class Rep. Deposition to be Completed in March ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge David c. Norton issued a second amended case management order no. 5 on February 18, 2015, in IN RE: PELLA CORPORATION ARCHITECT AND DESIGNER SERIES WINDOWS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL DOCKET NO. 2514, (D. S.C.). The schedule will govern those actions transferred to the South Carolina Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to its Order of February 14, 2014. Among other things, the schedule provides that: * Depositions of all class representatives shall be completed by March 15, 2015. * All depositions of Pella fact witnesses; third party defendants; and third party witnesses shall be completed by June 24, 2015. * By July 20, 2015, the parties shall select three cases for motions and briefing on class certification. The cases shall be selected in the following manner: Plaintiffs shall jointly select one case; Defendant shall jointly select one case and one case shall be selected at random from the remaining cases by whatever method agreed to by the Court and Parties. If Defendant's selected case is dismissed by Plaintiffs after July 20, 2015, the case will be dismissed with prejudice unless good cause can be shown that it should not be, the non-dismissing party shall be entitled to select a substitute case within Ten (10) days from when the case is dismissed, and briefing as to that case will be re-set at that time. * Plaintiffs shall disclose any expert who will provide testimony or affidavits in support of class certification and provide expert reports for such experts as required by Rule 26 by July 20, 2015. * Pella shall disclose any expert who will provide testimony or affidavits in opposition to class certification and provide expert reports for such experts as required by Rule 26 by August 20, 2015. * All depositions of the parties' experts regarding class certification issues and any other inspections performed shall be completed by October 1, 2015. * Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the selected cases and all briefing and materials in support of motion(s) for class certification shall be filed on or before October 15, 2015. * Pella's opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification and all briefing and materials in support of its opposition shall be filed on or before November 15, 2015. * Plaintiffs' reply memoranda in support of their motion(s) for class certification shall be filed on or before by November 30, 2015. A copy of the scheduling order is available at http://is.gd/VEcJnj from Leagle.com. In Re, Pella Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, represented by John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre, Baker Law Firm & Shane A Anderson -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels. Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel K Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP & Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger, Weiss Law Firm. Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Justin O'Toole Lucey -- jlucey@lucey-law.com -- Justin O'Toole Lucey Law Firm. Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy R Fiterman -- amy.fiterman@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, G Mark Phillips -- mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre, Baker Law Firm, Michael Tucker Cole -- mike.cole@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, Kevin L Morrow -- kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, Mark J Winebrenner, Faegre Baker Daniels & Shane A Anderson --shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels. PETER THE CHEF: Recalls Compliments Traditional Cannelloni ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 6, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Sesame Seeds Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Peter The Chef Fine Food Limited Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9615 Peter The Chef Fine Food Limited is recalling Compliments brand Traditional Cannelloni, Longo's brand Meat Cannelloni and Our Finest brand Cheese Tortellini from the marketplace because they may contain sesame which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to sesame should not consume the recalled products described. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to sesame, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. PREMIER POLMAREX: Recalls Olza Prince Polo Choc. Covered Wafers --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Premier Polmarex Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9620 Affected products: Olza Prince Polo Choc. Covered Wafer with all codes where milk is not declared on the label R.J. REYNOLDS: Corrected Opinion Entered in "Baker" Case -------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District issued a corrected opinion on February 18, 2015, in the case captioned SHIRLEY B. BAKER, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ELMER P. BAKER, Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellee, NO. 4D13-570. Shirley Baker (Plaintiff) sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Defendant) for the death of her husband Elmer Baker (Mr. Baker) that was allegedly caused by smoking. In her lawsuit, Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence, strict liability, concealment, and conspiracy. After the jury found Defendant's actions were not the legal cause of her husband's death, she argued that under the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (hereinafter Engle III), the jury's finding that Mr. Baker was a member of the Engle class consequently established the conduct and causation elements of her claims. She appeals the trial court's entry of final judgment in favor of Defendant, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial because the jury's verdict was internally inconsistent. The Florida Appeals Court held that by seeking to have the jury separately decide the issue of causation, and without raising the issue of what effect should be given to an Engle class finding, Plaintiff failed to preserve her right to appeal and cannot now successfully claim error simply because the jury returned an adverse verdict. Accordingly, the Florida Appeals Court found the Plaintiff's remaining issues on appeal to be without merit, and affirmed the trial court's denial of Plaintiff's motion for new trial. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/R6lmqdfrom Leagle.com David J. Sales -- david@salesappeals.com -- of David J. Sales, P.A., Jupiter, for appellant/cross-appellee. Robert C. Weill -- robert.weill@sedgwicklaw.com -- Eric L. Lundt -- eric.lundt@sedgwicklaw.com -- Gordon James, III, and Lenor C. Smith -- lenore.smith@sedgwicklaw.com -- of Sedgwick LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Donald Ayer -- dbayer@jonesday.com -- and Gregory G. Katsas -- ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, Washington, D.C., and Charles R.A. Morse -- cramorse@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, New York, NY, for appellee/cross-appellant. RDIO INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement --------------------------------------------------------------- Beach Road Music LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rdio Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00698 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendant reproduced, distributed, or performed Pre-1972 Recordings without paying royalties or licensing fees. Rdio Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered in San Francisco California. It is a music service that offers over 32 million songs in 85 countries worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Bruce J. Wecker, Esq. Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery St. San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com bwecker@hausfeld.com scho@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com ngiddings@hausfeld.com REGENCY ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Irwin Berlin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Regency Energy Partners LP, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv- 00519 (N.D. Tex., February 13, 2015), arises out of the unfair and inadequate consideration offered in the Proposed merger agreement between Regency Energy Partners LP and Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., specifically because the intrinsic value of Regency's common units is materially in excess of the amount offered, given the Company's significant potential for growth, anticipated operating results, and future profitability. Regency Energy Partners LP is a Delaware limited partnership, headquartered at 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 3700, Dallas, Texas 75201 that specializes in natural gas gathering and processing, transportation, contract compression and treating, crude oil gathering, water gathering and disposal, and natural gas liquids transportation, fractionation and storage. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Jean McKey, Esq. Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com administrator@kendalllawgroup.com SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: To Defend v. Morning Song Bird Food Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company 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 disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated action, Morning Song Bird Food Litigation. In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble); reimbursement, restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustly conferred; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated action. "Given the early stages of the action, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with the action and, accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements with respect to the action. There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a result of an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said. SEA GULL: Recalls Chandeliers Due to Risk of Fall ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 5, 2015 Posting date: February 5, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43629 Affected products: Sea Gull Lighting Chandeliers The recall involves various models of Sea Gull Lighting chandeliers from one of these seven collections: Brandywine, Laurel Leaf, New Verona, Newport, Parkview, Roslyn and Somerton. The chandeliers are metal with various finishes and two or three tiers of glass shades. They measure between 68.58 cm to 127 cm (27 to 50 inches) wide and 66.04 cm to 116.84 cm (26 to 46 inches) high, depending on the model. The screw collar that holds the chandelier to the ceiling mount can break causing the chandelier to fall, creating a risk of injury to bystanders under or near the chandelier. Four incidents have been reported to Sea Gull Lighting. No injuries have been reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 800 chandeliers were sold in Canada and 8,800 were sold in the United States at various retailers and online. The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from November 2006 to August 2013 in Canada and the United States. Companies: Distributor Sea Gull Lighting Products, LLC Skokie Illinois United States Consumers should contact Sea Gull Lighting to receive a free repair kit or replacement for chandeliers that have fallen. SEARS CANADA: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs ------------------------------------- Starting date: January 28, 2015 Posting date: January 28, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43495 Affected products: Vinyl Bean Bag Chairs The recall involves polystyrene-filled vinyl bean bag chairs that have a single zipper on the exterior cover. The round vinyl bean bag chairs measure 88" in diameter and were sold in purple, black, pink, royal blue, and red. A tag sewn into the bean bag chair's cover seam reads "Made By Comfort Research" and "100% Polystyrene". Bean Bags Recalled: Description Sears UPC Sears Item Number ----------- --------- ----------------- Classic Purple 650231603077 99755 Classic Black 650231062997 99775 Classic Pink 650231063017 99779 Classic Royal 650231063093 99784 Classic Red 650231063031 99786 The zippers on the bean bag chairs can be opened by children who can then crawl inside, become entrapped, suffocate or choke on the bean bag chair's foam beads. Neither Health Canada nor Sears Canada Inc. has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these bean bag chairs. Approximately 346 units of the recalled products were sold in Canada, online through Sears.ca. The recalled products were manufactured in United States and China and sold from March 2010 to March 2012. Companies: Manufacturer Comfort Research, LLC Grand Rapids Michigan United States Retailer Sears Canada Inc. Toronto Ontario Canada Consumers should immediately take the recalled bean bag chairs away from children and check if the zippers can be opened. SIRIUS XM: To Appeal Ruling in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM Holdings Inc. 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 intends to appeal the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the so-called Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters. "We are a defendant in three class action suits and one additional suit, which were commenced in August and September 2013 and challenge our use and public performance via satellite radio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 under California, New York and/or Florida law," the Company said. "The plaintiffs in each of these suits purport to seek in excess of $100 million in compensatory damages along with unspecified punitive damages and injunctive relief. Accordingly, at this point we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, which could be incurred if the plaintiffs were to prevail in the allegations, but we believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted. We intend to defend these actions vigorously." In September 2014, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the grant of "exclusive ownership" to the owner of a sound recording under California's copyright statute included the exclusive right to control public performances of the sound recording. The court further found that the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion. In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles adopted the Central District Court's interpretation of "exclusive ownership" under California's copyright statute. That Court did not find that the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion. In November 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 were entitled under various theories of New York common law to the benefits of a public performances right. "We intend to appeal these decisions," the Company said. These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv- 5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County). Additional information concerning each of these actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket numbers. SIRIUS XM: Seeks Indemnification From Call Center Vendors --------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM Holdings Inc. 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 notified certain of its call center vendors of Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuits and requested that they defend and indemnify the Company against these claims. "We are a defendant in three purported class action suits, which were commenced in February 2012, January 2013 and January 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California that allege that we, or certain call center vendors acting on our behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA")," the Company said. "The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that we called mobile phones using an automatic telephone dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or, alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent and, in one of the actions, that we violated the TCPA's call time restrictions. The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of in terest, attorneys' fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the TCPA in the future. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions, and we intend to defend them vigorously." "We have notified certain of our call center vendors of these actions and requested that they defend and indemnify us against these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing or former agreements with us. We believe we have valid contractual claims against certain call center vendors in connection with these claims and intend to preserve and pursue our rights to recover from these entities." These cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.) and Brian Trenz v. Sirius XM Holdings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-cv- 0044L-BLM (S.D. Cal). SONY COMPUTER: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement --------------------------------------------------------------- Beach Road Music LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, and Sony Entertainment Network International LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv- 00703 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendants reproduced, distributed, or performed Pre-1972 Recordings without paying royalties or licensing fees to the recordings' owners. The Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies that own and operate Music Unlimited. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Bruce J. Wecker, Esq. Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery St. San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com bwecker@hausfeld.com scho@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com ngiddings@hausfeld.com STOCKLOTS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Boys Print Fleece Top with Hood --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 2, 2015 Posting date: February 2, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Strangulation Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43531 Affected products: McGordon Boys Print Fleece Top with hood drawstring, style number# KBB-1552 McGordon's Boys Printed Fleece Top with full zip and hood, style KBB-1552. The drawstring is found around the hood of the garment Health Canada has determined that drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in strangulation, or in the case of a vehicle, the child being dragged. Neither Stocklots Distribution nor Health Canada has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Approximately 1512 Boys fleece hooded sweatshirt with full zip and hood were sold. The recalled products were manufactured in Philippines and sold from October 2012 to January 2015. Companies: Distributor Stocklots Distribution/4283147Canada Inc. Montreal Canada Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hood to eliminate the hazard. SUNBEAM: Recalls Bionaire and Sunbeam Oil Filled Heaters -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: January 29, 2015 Posting date: January 29, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Burn Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-43391 Affected products: Bionaire and Sunbeam brand oil filled heaters with the following date codes on the plug prongs: G170, G179 or G229 The recall involves Bionaire and Sunbeam branded oil filled heaters. The heaters are black (Bionaire) and grey (Sunbeam) and measure about 65 centimetres (25.5 inches) tall, 30.5 centimetres (12 inches) wide and 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) long. The model number is printed on the rating label adjacent to the control panel of the heater. The "Bionaire" logo is located above the digital control panel and the "Sunbeam" logo is located under the power switch. The only heaters that are affected have a date code on the heater plug prongs of G170, G179 or G229. The heaters may spray or expel heated oil, posing a potential scald hazard to consumers and damage their property. Sunbeam has received 31 reports of incidents in Canada involving the Bionaire brand model BOF2001-CN heater spraying/expelling oil leading to minor property damage. One incident involved a consumer slipping on the oil resulting in a sprained wrist. Health Canada has received one consumer report of the heater leaking oil, and no injuries were reported. Approximately 564 units of the Bionaire brand model BOF2001-CN and 83 units of the Sunbeam brand model SOF1000-CN were sold in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold between August 2014 and November 2014. Companies: Distributor Sunbeam Corporation (Canada) Ltd. dba Jarden Consumer Solutions ("Sunbeam") Brampton Ontario Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the Bionaire BOF2011-CN and Sunbeam SOF1000-CN oil filled heater models. Consumers are advised to unplug their product and contact Sunbeam for instructions on how to cut the cord/plug and send it to Sunbeam to receive a refund. T & K HOSPITALITY: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicasio Flores, Nael Lopez, and Yaneth Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. T & K Hospitality LLC d/b/a Pinto Restaurant, Teerawon Nanthavatsiri, Kobsak Songyoo and Hei Man Leung Godfrey, Case No. 1:15-cv-01056 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant located at 118 Christopher Street, New York, New York 10014. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com TALK4LESS LLC: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shaun Roberts, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Talk4Less LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00115 (S.D. Ohio, February 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Talk4Less LLC is a Florida limited liability company that owns and operates a mobile phone and accessories stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose II, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com TASTE OF COUNTRY: Recalls Chicken Pie Due to Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Taste of Country Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9618 Taste of Country is recalling Taste of Country brand Chicken Pie from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 6 X 125 g. Taste of Country Chicken Pie with all codes where milk is not declared on the label TAYLOR FARMS: Judge Narrows Class in Hourly Workers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Hourly workers sought class certification of their lawsuit against former and current employers, in the case captioned MARIA DEL CARMEN PENA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC., d/b/a TAYLOR FARMS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:13-CV-01282- KJM-AC, (E.D. Cal.). Three defendants, Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc. (TFP), Abel Mendoza, Inc. (AMI), and SlingShot Connections, LLC opposed the motion. Plaintiffs replied. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted in part and denied in part the certification motion in a Feb. 9, 2015 order available at http://is.gd/yoe6iffrom Leagle.com. The judge specifically ruled that: 1. The motion to certify the general class is GRANTED IN PART: a. Certification of the class and each subclass is DENIED as to defendant SlingShot Connections, LLC. b. Certification of the donning and doffing subclass is DENIED. c. Certification of the mixed hourly worker subclass is GRANTED in part, as to meal break claims, and DENIED in part, as to rest break claims. Plaintiffs Pena, Hernandez, and Morris are approved as subclass representatives. d. Certification of the waiting time subclass is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As granted, this subclass is derivative of the mixed hourly workers subclass. Plaintiffs Pena and Hernandez are approved as subclass representatives. e. Certification of the wage statement subclass is DENIED. 2. To the extent certification is denied for any subclass for lack of sufficient evidence, the court does so without prejudice in light of its recent orders on summary judgment and the lifting of the discovery stay effected by this order. Should the plaintiffs file a renewed motion for class certification, they may in the same motion seek leave to amend the complaint and make substitutions of named plaintiffs. However, before filing any renewed motion for class certification, plaintiffs' counsel shall meet and confer in person with defendants' counsel and, fourteen days before filing any such motion, arrange for the filing of a joint statement reporting on the meet and confer efforts and the parties' positions with respect to a renewed motion. Upon receipt of such a joint statement, the court may set a special status. 3. Plaintiffs' counsel is approved as class counsel. 4. The stay on discovery is LIFTED. A status conference is currently scheduled for March 19, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. The parties shall file a joint report no later than seven days before the conference. TFP operates two food production and processing plants in Tracy, California. The plaintiffs used to work in those plants. They seek to represent a class of the defendants' current and former employees and bring employment claims. Their claims arise from three core allegations: that the defendants did not pay them for time spent putting on and taking off mandatory personal protective equipment, that is "donning and doffing" the equipment; that the defendants did not allow them rest breaks and meal breaks as required by California labor law; and that they did not receive paychecks in the form and at the time California law requires. Specifically, the plaintiffs' plead eight claims. Maria del Carmen Pena, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K. Oliver, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law Firm, Llc, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric Daniel Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler. Consuelo Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K. Oliver, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law Firm, Llc, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric Daniel Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler. Leticia Suarez, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K. Oliver, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law Firm, Llc, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric Daniel Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler. Rosemary Dail, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K. Oliver, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law Firm, Llc, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric Daniel Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler. Wendell T. Morris, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia K. Oliver, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Philip A Downey, The Downey Law Firm, Llc, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Eric Daniel Rouen, Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler. Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Craig Hansen, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Sarah Zenewicz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher & Jesse Alvin Cripps, Jr., Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP. Abel Mendoza, Inc., Defendant, represented by Wade M Hansard, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP. Manpower, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sabrina Alexis Beldner, McGuire Woods LLP. Quality Farm Labor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Terrence Raymond O'Connor, Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss. Slingshot Connections LLC, Defendant, represented by Hope Anne Case, Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, Luanne Sacks, Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, Sonia Sanjit Shah, Pahl & McCay & Stephen D. Pahl, Pahl & Mccay. TJX CANADA: Recalls Masala Maza Korma Simmer Sauce -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 2, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: TJX Canada Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9601 Affected products: 355 ml Masala Maza Korma Simmer Sauce TOTALLY GLUTEN: Recalls Pizzas Due to Undeclared Mustard -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 3, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Totally Gluten Free Bakery Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9614 TOYOTA: Recalls FJ Cruiser Model Due to Possible Loss of Steering ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 5, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 36 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015053 TC ID number: 2015053 Manufacturer recall number: SRC R03 On certain vehicles, the intermediate shaft that connects the steering wheel to the steering gear box might have been improperly welded during manufacturing. If the vehicle is continuously operated in this condition, the weld could separate, which could result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the intermediate shaft. Affected products: 2014 Toyota FJ Cruiser TRIUMPH PROPERTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- John Hastings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Triumph Property Management Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00312 (S.D. Cal., February 13, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and other class members via text message utilizing an automated telephone dialing system. Triumph Property Management Corporation is a real estate company doing business in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Settled With Former Chief Financial Officer --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2014, that with respect to Mark H. Swartz, the Company's former chief financial officer, in November 2014 the parties reached a definitive agreement to resolve all outstanding disputes, with Mr. Swartz agreeing to release the Company from any claims to monetary amounts related to compensation, retention or other arrangements alleged to have existed between him and the Company. In the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company also received approximately $12 million in cash from Mr. Swartz, $5 million of which will be shared pursuant to the terms of the class action lawsuit, resulting in a net recovery of $7 million which was recorded in Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The cash received has been classified as restricted. UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss Immigrants' Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States saw a surge in immigration in the summer of 2014 as people fled increased lawlessness in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. In the case, R. I. L-R, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-11 (JEB), (D. D. C.), Plaintiffs (and other members of the class they seek to represent) are mothers and their minor children who escaped violence and persecution in these countries to seek asylum in the United States. After entering this country unlawfully and being apprehended, each was found to have a "credible fear" of persecution, meaning there is a significant possibility that she will ultimately be granted asylum here. Although, in the past, individuals in this position were generally released while their asylum claims were processed, Plaintiffs were not so lucky. Instead, for each family, Immigration and Customs Enforcement determined that interim detention was the appropriate course. Chasing liberty, Plaintiffs turned to the courts. They filed suit on January 6, 2015, naming the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and two ICE officials as Defendants. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs' detention resulted from an unlawful policy that DHS adopted in June 2014 in response to the immigration spike. Pursuant to that policy, Plaintiffs claim, DHS is detaining Central American mothers and children with the aim of deterring potential future immigrants. According to Plaintiffs, such detention violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and applicable DHS regulations. They now seek a preliminary injunction to prevent DHS from applying this policy until a final determination has been reached on the merits of this action. Finding that the circumstances merit extraordinary form of relief, District Judge James E. Boasberg granted the Plaintiffs' Motions for a Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification, and denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A copy of Judge Boasberg's February 20, 2015 memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/njsRXvfrom Leagle.com. R. I. L-R, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach -- dauerbach@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts -- dzionts@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz -- plevitz@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. J. L. S., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. K. L. S., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. Z. M. R., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. J. P. L-M, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. W. M. C., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. C. M. A-C, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. G. A. P-C, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. G. C. R., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. J. A. R., Plaintiff, represented by Dennis B. Auerbach, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL, David M. Zionts, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Judy Rabinovitz, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION & Philip J. Levitz, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP. JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, In his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Wynne Patrick Kelly, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. PHILIP T. MILLER, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Director of Field Operations for Enforcement and Removal Operations, In his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Wynne Patrick Kelly, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SARAH R. SALDANA, Assistant Secretary for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, In her Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by Sarah B. Fabian, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. UNITED STATES: Suit Against Retirement Systems Dept. Remanded ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Linda Lee of the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, affirmed a superior court's remand order in the case JEFFREY PROBST, and a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, MICKEY FOWLER and LEISA FOWLER, and a class of TRS 3 Plan members, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, Respondent, NO. 45128-011 (Wash. App.) Jeffrey Probst filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Retirement Services (DRS) when he found out that his contributions were not earning interests. He then filed a class action suit in superior court, challenging the DRS's calculation practice and sought judicial review of the DRS's decision. The administrative appeal was consolidated into the superior court action. The superior court then approved a class settlement agreement, which excluded some class members based on the date that they transferred from Plan 2 to Plan 3. The settlement agreement provided that excluded proposed additional class members' claims may still be brought against the DRS. Mickey and Leisa Fowler, who were part of the proposed additional class, filed an amended complaint. The superior court dismissed the claims, in which the Fowlers appealed before the present court. The court of appeals reviewed, reversed and remanded the case to the superior court. On remand to the superior court, the Fowlers argued that the court of appeals opinion required that judgment be entered in their favor and required the DRS to pay daily interest. The superior court disagreed and remanded the action to the DRS. The Fowlers again filed an appeal before the present court, questioning the superior court's order in remanding the action to the DRS. The Fowlers argue that the trial court failed to comply with court of appeals mandate when it refused to calculate the interest the Fowlers were entitled to based on the common law daily interest rule and instead remanded the action to the DRS; the DRS cannot retroactively apply a newly adopted rule, and; the DRS's retroactive application of a new rule that does not use the common law daily interest rule will result in an unconstitutional taking. Additionally, the Fowlers seek costs and a common fund attorney fee award at the conclusion of the litigation. The appellate court affirmed the superior court's order in remanding the case to the DRS, and denied the Fowlers request for a common fund attorney fee award. A copy of Judge Lee's unpublished opinion dated December 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/H75hz6from Leagle.com. Counsel for Appellants: Stephen Kolden Strong, Esq. Stephen Kirk Festor, Esq. David Frank Stobaugh, Esq. BENDICH STOBAUGH & STRONG PC 701 5th Ave Ste 4850 Seattle, WA, 98104-7062 - and - Philip Albert Talmadge, Esq. TALMADGE/FITZPATRICK 2775 Harbor Ave Sw Seattle, WA, 98126-2138 Counsel for Respondent(s): Michael E. Tardif, Esq. Jeffrey A.O. Freimund, Esq. FREIMUND JACKSON TARDIF & BENEDICT GARRA 711 Capitol Way S. Ste 602 Olympia, WA, 98501-1236 - and - Sarah Elizabeth Blocki, Esq. Attorney at Law 7141 Cleanwater Dr Sw Po Box 40108 Olympia, WA, 98504-0108 The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division II panel consists of Presiding Judge Lisa R. Worswick and Judges Linda Lee and Bradley Maxa. WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lowe" Suit Over Product Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------- Sherri Lowe, individually and on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Case No. 2:15- cv-04030 (W.D. Mo., February 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendants' Spring Valley Gingko Biloba, Spring Valley St. John's Wort, Spring Valley Ginseng and Spring Valley Echinacea 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: Edward D. Robertson Jr., Esq. James P. Frickleton, Esq. Edward D. Robertson III, Esq. BARTIMUS, FRICKETON, ROBERTSON & GOZA, P.C. 11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 266-2300 Facsimile: (913) 266-2366 E-mail: chiprob@earthlink.net jimfnu@bflawfirm.com krobertson@bflawfirm.com - and - Jay Barnes, Esq. BARNES & ASSOCIATES 219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A Jefferson City, MO 65101 Telephone: (573) 634-8884 Facsimile: (573) 635-6291 E-mail: jaybarnes5@zoho.com WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Myers" Suit in Indiana District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Erika Strojny Myers, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Wal-Mart.Com Usa, LLC, Wal-Mart.Com Usa, LLC, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., Wal-Mart TRS, LLC, and Wal-Mart TRS, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00019-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., February 17, 2015) asserts fraud-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: John L. Smith, Esq. FAITH INGLE SMITH LLC 412 East Main Street New Albany, IN 47150 Telephone: (812) 542-0048 Facsimile: (812) 941-4026 E-mail: jsmith@faithinglesmith.com WATSON LABORATORIES: Direct Purchasers Obtain Final Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------ In IN RE LOESTRIN 24 FE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, NO. 1:13-MD-2472-S- PAS, (D.R.I.), the Court ruled on these motions: (1) Motion for Entry of Final Judgment filed by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs American Sales Company and Rochester Drug Co-Operative (Direct Purchasers); (2) End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration or Alternatively to Certify the Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and to Stay the Proceeding; and (3) Defendants' Motion to Stay the Walgreen Plaintiffs' Action. In an order dated February 17, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/GywnDtfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge William E. Smith held that the Direct Purchasers' Motion for Entry of Final Judgment is granted. Judge Smith noted that, in a September 4, 2014 Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, the Court dismissed Direct Purchasers' Sherman Act complaint in its entirety, denying Direct Purchasers all relief. Thus, their case is "immediately appealable." Final judgment will, therefore, be entered in favor of Defendants and against Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 58(b)(1)(C). End-Payor Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration or Alternatively to Certify the Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and to Stay the Proceeding is granted in part and denied in part. According to Judge Smith, reconsideration is not appropriate unless the movant demonstrates newly discovered evidence, "a manifest error of law," or that the court "patently misunderstood" a party's argument. End-Payor Plaintiffs ("End Payors") demonstrate only that they dispute the Court's analysis in its September 4, 2014 Opinion and Order, largely repeating arguments previously set forth in their opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. They point to nothing that could constitute a "manifest error of law." Their description of the Court's "misunderstanding" is again merely a reiteration of their disagreement with the Court's analysis. For these reasons, End Payors' request for reconsideration is denied, he said. End Payors' request for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) is also denied, Judge Smith added. The Court has determined that the appropriate approach is to enter final judgment as to End Payors' federal antitrust claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). There is "no just reason" to delay entering final judgment as to these claims because to do otherwise would bar End Payors from appealing these claims at the same time as Direct Purchasers, causing the precise harm Rule 54(b) meant to avoid, according to Judge Smith. Moreover, End Payors intend to appeal the same issue as to which Direct Purchasers are entitled to final judgment. Thus, given that Direct Purchasers' claim is ripe for appeal regardless of End Payors' participation, granting Rule 54(b) judgment has no bearing on the usual concern with piecemeal appeals, Judge Smith said. "Final judgment will therefore be entered in favor of Defendants and against End Payors as to Claims One and Three in End Payors' Consolidated Class Action Complaint," ruled the Court. "End Payors' request to stay remaining proceedings in this Court as to their state law claims pending resolution of their appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals of the September 4, 2014 Opinion and Order is hereby granted." In addition, Defendants' Motion to Stay the Walgreen Plaintiffs' Action is granted. Because resolution of the appeals will be determinative of at least a large portion of the Walgreen Plaintiffs' claims, judicial economy clearly favors staying the action, notes the Court. The Walgreen Plaintiffs, in their objection, fail to persuasively set forth any indication that they will be prejudiced by a stay. "All matters before the Court in this action are hereby stayed, pending resolution of the anticipated appeals of the judgments entered under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 58 discussed herein, or until further order of this Court," Judge Smith added. WHITE HALL: Removes "Hartman" FLSA Suit to N.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled Hartman v. White Hall Pharmacy, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-C-24, was removed from the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, Clarksburg Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00026-IMK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint is centered upon his allegation of retaliatory discharge brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry J. Rector, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC 400 White Oaks Blvd. Bridgeport, WV 26330 Telephone: (304) 933-8151 Facsimile: (304) 933-8753 E-mail: Larry.Rector@steptoe-johnson.com - and - Julie A. Moore, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC PO Box 1616 Morgantown, WV 26507-1616 Telephone: (304) 598-8137 Facsimile: (304) 598-8116 E-mail: julie.moore@steptoe-johnson.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian J. Moore, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP P.O. Box 11887 900 Lee Street, East, Suite 600 Charleston, WV 25339-1887 Telephone: (304) 357-0900 Facsimile: (304) 357-0919 E-mail: brian.moore@dinsmore.corn - and - Michael J. Moore, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 215 Don Knotts Boulevard, Suite 310 Morgantown, WV 26501 Telephone: (304) 225-1420 Facsimile: (304) 246-6116 E-mail: michael.moore@dinsmore.com * Percentage of Women Lawyers in Top Positions Low, NAWL Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the percentage of women lawyers in top positions in general is low -- just 17 percent of partners are female at the nation's largest 200 firms, according to the National Association of Women Lawyers. And that data reflects mostly firms that serve as defense counsel. No statistics are available on the percentage of women on the plaintiffs side or specifically in mass torts, but lawyers in the practice area say that it has been overwhelmingly dominated by men. When Elizabeth Cabraser first started working as a law clerk for Bob Lieff in 1977, she was often the only woman in a mass tort case. "Over the years, a few more women came into the picture, but they were still few and far between," said Ms. Cabraser, a partner at San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. "The guys were in charge." Now, more female attorneys are taking on leadership roles in mass tort litigation, in part due to the encouragement of judges who appoint the committees that lead the litigation, many of which involve products made exclusively for women, such as birth control and pelvic mesh devices. A major reason for the shortage of women on the plaintiffs side is money. Those attorneys, who work on contingency arrangements, must find the funding for litigation that often lasts for years. Historically, the financial decisions have been made by the male lawyers leading their firms. And mass torts can be pricey: The sudden-acceleration litigation against Toyota Motor Corp., for example, cost more than $5 million. But that's beginning to change. "Finally, after years, you're starting to see women as repeat players who either started their own law firms and figured out how to do this, or have risen in the ranks of a larger plaintiffs firm and are now decision-makers," Ms. Cabraser said. Other changes stem from the bench. In a comprehensive 2014 report, the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies called on judges and law firms in mass torts to include more women and minority lawyers who in the past "have not been appointed to leadership positions at rates proportionate to their representation in the plaintiffs' bar generally." Some judges, both men and women, have taken it upon themselves to appoint more women applying to steering committees that lead the litigation. In 2013, for example, U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel of the Southern District of New York encouraged plaintiffs attorneys to put a woman on the lead committee overseeing litigation about the Mirena intrauterine device. It's a significant shift from the early 1990s, when predominantly male lawyers were throwing their money into large mass torts such as tobacco and breast implants. In those days, most of the plaintiffs lawyers funded the litigation with money they previously had made in individual cases, said Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif. And for women without a track record of victories, doors were closed. "I don't know that there were a lot of women lawyers who were trying product liability cases back in those days," he said. As for getting a third party to provide financing, "there were not many women in any of the firms in a senior enough position at that point to be able to go to a bank and get the backing to pursue that litigation," said Jayne Conroy -- jconroy@simmonsfirm.com -- co-founder of Simmons Hanly Conroy in New York. "It's very important to have women on the team, but it's very, very difficult to find law firms with senior partners who are women who can control the flow of money in those cases." But change is afoot. Three years ago, plaintiffs lawyer Aimee Wagstaff -- aimee.wagstaff@ahw-law.com -- founding partner of Andrus Wagstaff in Lakewood, Colo., launched a networking group called Women En Mass, which hosts an annual retreat in Aspen, Colo. This year's event is expected to have more than 200 attendees, said Lori Andrus -- lori.andrus@andrusanderson.com -- a partner at San Francisco's Andrus Anderson, a grassroots organizer of the group and daughter of Ms. Wagstaff's law partner, Vance Andrus. "One myth we want to dispel is that we're not out there," she said. The retreat features panels, a reception and some time to bond while enjoying hiking trails or spas. Among the group's tasks are to submit law review articles to publications read by judges and develop their networking by identifying a list of "allies" who have helped promote women. Many of their supporters have been men in senior positions who recognize that times have changed. "To be in mass tort litigation is a commitment to travel, it's a commitment to long hours and different kinds of hours, and it's a commitment you are going to be away from your family a substantial amount of time, and it's unpredictable," said Joseph Rice, founding member of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C. "I think women in today's litigation world are more prepared to do that than they were 20 or 25 years ago." Some firms have pushed for their female partners to take those roles. Having women on those committees makes a difference in mass torts, lawyers say, especially when some of the largest cases in the country involve women's products. "I've certainly impressed the point on my male colleagues that if you have a mass tort involving a defective birth control device, it's not a good idea to propose a 100 percent male leadership slate," Ms. Cabraser said. In a bellwether trial defending Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon Inc.'s pelvic mesh device, for example, attorney Kim Schmid -- kim.schmid@bowmanandbrooke.com -- discussed a woman's sex life, uterus, vagina and menstrual blood flow. "It's a sensitive topic to even talk about, let alone mention in a public setting, but we have to do that," said Ms. Schmid, executive managing partner of Bowman and Brooke in Minneapolis, in her Jan. 26 opening statement, according to Courtroom View Network. CHALLENGES ON BOTH SIDES Some lawyers said more women have joined the defense side in mass torts, where large firms benefit from clients that have encouraged diversity and where bills get paid on a regular basis. But the National Association of Women Lawyers found little change in the promotion and retention of women at the largest 200 firms during the past few years in its latest survey, released in 2014. "In big high-stakes litigation, and in any matter, not just mass torts, where it's perceived to be bet-the-company, corporations are looking for the most seasoned litigators," said Cari Dawson -- cari.dawson@alston.com -- head of the class action practice team at Alston & Bird. "And not at all, but at certain law firms, those might be more so men than women." As lead defense attorney for Toyota in the class actions filed over economic damages associated with sudden acceleration, Dawson flew from her home in Atlanta to other cities across the country, sometimes as often as once a week. "It can be challenging when you have responsibilities for a child or elder parent and you're on the road three weeks out of the month," she said. "How do you juggle that?" In many respects, the challenges in mass torts aren't dissimilar from women in other professions, Mr. Andrus said. Women continue to face discrimination, biases and stereotypes every day, noting that she regularly gets mistaken for the court reporter at depositions and in court. "We have more work to do to inform people of our presence," she said. "There's a long way to go." ********* 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 * * *