/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150304.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 45 Headlines ALBA LAW: Removes "Pruitt" Class Suit to Maryland District Court ALI BABA: Faces US SEC Probe Amid Shareholder Class Actions AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Class Suits Moved to W.D. Mo. Western Division AU OPTRONICS: Judge Says 7 Cases Should Be Remanded AUDAX GROUP: Faces Suit in Georgia Alleging Violations of TCPA BARRY FREUNDEL: Authorities Seek Possible Victims BAYER INC: Faces Class Action Over Xarelto-Linked Deaths BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Agrees to Replace Cracked Wheels BREG INC: Cold Therapy Suit Removed to Federal Court Under CAFA CAC FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CAMP MINDEN: May Face Class Action Over 2012 Explosion CATAMARAN CORP: Sued for Low-Balling Pharmacy Reimbursements CLANTON, AL: Justice Department Weighs on Detention Misuse CHOCOLATE BY DESIGN: Recalls Milk Chocolate Pops Due to Eggs CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Settles MBS Class Action for $235 Million CMS BANCORP: Party to Class Action Settlement Agreement COLORADO: Court Dismisses "Loggins" Pro Se Suit COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xfinity Wifi Hot-Spots CON YEAGER: Recalls Various Cumin Products Due to Peanuts DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action DEL MONTE: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $7.5 Million EL POPOCATEPETL: Recalls Flavored Wraps Products Due to Milk FAIRWAY LIKE: Recalls Raw Hazelnuts Due to Salmonella FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Dismissed Prisoner's Appeal FORD MOTOR: Judge Tosses Defect Power Steering Class Action GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Gingko Biloba GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says HAMPDEN BANCORP: Faces "Levy" Class Action Lawsuit HANBIT ENTERPRISES: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Health Risks HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Colistimethate for Injections HEWLETT-PACKARD: Seeks Dismissal of Autonomy Class Action HIGHVELD SYNDICATIONS: Investors Mull Class Actions HOME LOAN: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action HORIZON LINES: Settles Class Actions Over Planned Sale HUMMINGBIRD WHOLESALE: Recalls Organic Chocolate Hazelnut Butter IDEAL MEDICAL: Removes "Riley" Suit to Florida District Court IT'S JUST LUNCH: Faces Class Action Over Membership Refunds KBR: Class Action Over "Burn Pits" Heads Back to Maryland KIRSCH MUSHROOM: Recalls Chilean Mushrooms Due to Sulfites LANNETT COMPANY: "Schaefer" Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed LAROSA'S CREAMY: Recalls Garlic Dressing Due to Milk & Eggs LIFELINE INC: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Care LIONS GATE: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Trial Ct. Ruling in Holmes Case Party Upheld LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Williams Case Court Ruling Partly Reversed LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Holmes Case Remanded to Trial Court MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: "Thomas" Case Pending in ND California MAJOR LEAGUE: Class Action Trial Date Set for February 2017 MAJOR LEAGUE: Plaintiffs Must Justify Calif. Venue in Wage Suit MARTIN O'BOYLE: Town of Gulf Stream Files Class Action MARY JO AVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA MATTHEWS HOMES: Insurer Hit With $4.5-Mil. Bad Faith Verdict MEDTRONIC INC: Court OKs Distribution Plan in Firefighters' Suit NAT'L FOOTBALL: Nears Concussion Settlement With Retired Players MINNESOTA: Sex Offender Program Class Action Bench Trial Begins NEW YORK TRANSIT: Sued Over Worker's Unlawful Forced Retirement NEWS CORPORATION: To Be Indemnified by 21st Century Fox NEWS CORPORATION: Oral Argument Heard in Certification Motion NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act OCALA, FL: Judge Dismisses Fire User Fee Class Action OLD HOME KITCHENS: Recalls Creme Cakes Due to Undeclared Pecans PANDORA MEDIA: Plaintiff Appeals Privacy Class Action Dismissal PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Trade Manipulation PHILIP MORRIS: Seeks to Disqualify Justice From Hearing Appeal PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORT: May Expedite Section 216(B) Notice PURINA ANIMAL: Recalls DuMOR(R) Sheep Formula Due to High Copper RAYMOND JAMES: No Class Certified in Actions v. Morgan Keegan RAYMOND JAMES: Trial Date in Retail Purchasers' Suit Postponed RAYONIER INC: Saxena White and Berstein Litowitz Named Lead Atty RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in Calif. ROSS EARLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Sullivan" Suit Included in Restore Products MDL SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Atracurium Besylate Injections SPICECO OF AVENEL: Recalls Sweet Hungarian Paprika Due to Peanuts SUNBURY COMMUNITY: Data Breach Class Actions Combined SYNGENTA CORP: "Hayden" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL TAKATA CORP: "Ahmadi" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: "Back" Class Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: "Horton" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: "Meiser" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: "Rosenstock" Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: Two Suits From M.D. Florida Included in Airbag MDL TAKATA CORP: "Zamora" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: 10 Suits From C.D. California Included in Airbag MDL TAKATA CORP: Four Suits From S.D. New York Included in Airbag MDL TAKATA CORP: "Gerhart" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: Two Suits From New Jersey Consolidated in Airbag MDL TAKATA CORP: Honda Rules Out Financial Support Amid Airbag Woes TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Abdelgadir" Suit Included in Securities MDL TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Fortegra Settles Stein and Hickey Actions TIPTREE FINANCIAL: No Hearings, Trials Set in "Mullins" Case U.S. BANK: N.D. Cal. Judge Decertifies Class in "Trahan" Suit UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Recalls Breyers(R) Salted Caramel Swirl VEMMA NUTRITION: "Horanzy" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Arizona WELLS FARGO: "Vasquez" Suit Goes to C.D. California WHITEWAVE FOODS: Recalls Cheddar Sandwich Crackers Due to Peanuts WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Cakes Due to Undeclared Eggs WINNETKA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee XEROX CORP: Class Action Over Customer Service Ongoing ********* ALBA LAW: Removes "Pruitt" Class Suit to Maryland District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Pruitt v. The Alba Law Group, P.A., et al., Case No. CAL 14-30978, was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-00458-DKC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims relating to the Defendants' alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm. Defendant The Alba Law Group, P.A., is represented by: Alvin I. Frederick, Esq. Lauren Elizabeth Marini, Esq. ECCLESTON AND WOLF PC Baltimore Washington Law Center 7240 Parkway Dr., Fourth Floor Hanover, MD 21076 Telephone: (410) 752-7474 Facsimile: (410) 752-0611 E-mail: frederick@ewmd.com marini@ewmd.com Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and US Bank National Association are represented by: Russell J. Pope, Esq. Sarah E. Meyer, Esq. TREANOR POPE AND HUGHES PA 500 York Road Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 494-7777 Facsimile: (410) 494-1658 E-mail: rjpope@tph-law.com semeyer@tph-law.com ALI BABA: Faces US SEC Probe Amid Shareholder Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Sijia Jiang and Toh Han Shih, writing for South China Morning Post, report that e-commerce giant Alibaba's trouble with mainland regulators over the alleged sale of fake goods has now got the attention of regulators in the United States. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had asked Alibaba to provide information regarding the company's recent run-in with the mainland's State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), Alibaba said in an announcement on Feb. 13. Alibaba, which did not give details of what the US commission is asking, said it was voluntarily disclosing the receipt of the SEC correspondence "because we value being open with our investors and feel that disclosure could help avoid false rumours or speculation". It said the US regulator's letter stated it "should in no way be construed as Alibaba Group having done anything wrong or there having been any violation of securities law". "We are cooperating with the SEC's request," Alibaba said. The possibility of an SEC investigation adds further uncertainty to the outlook for Alibaba's share price on the New York Stock Exchange. The shares have already fallen 13.5 per cent since January 27, the day before the SAIC released a white paper over the large number of counterfeit and substandard goods on its Taobao retail platform. At least six US law firms have since filed class-action shareholder lawsuits against Alibaba. "The complaint alleges the company failed to disclose to investors that it was meeting with [SAIC] in July 2014, just two months before Alibaba's US$25 billion IPO," one of the firms, Hagens Berman, said in a statement. Alibaba had said the talks with SAIC officials came in the normal course of business in China and did not require disclosure in its IPO prospectus. It also said it did not learn of the allegations of counterfeiting until the white paper was published online. A partner with a mainland law firm said that if the SEC investigated Alibaba, the US lawsuits would become a more serious matter. Jack Ma Yun, Alibaba's billionaire chairman, said in his annual letter to his 20,000 employees, posted on the company's official microblog on Feb. 13, that now was the "most critical moment" in the company's 15-year history. However, he urged employees to be relaxed about the lawsuits. AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Class Suits Moved to W.D. Mo. Western Division ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amerigas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the purported class action cases to the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri. Following the issuance of the Federal Trade Commission's administrative complaint, more than 35 class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded beginning in 2008 to reduce the fill level and combined to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. AU OPTRONICS: Judge Says 7 Cases Should Be Remanded --------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, NO. M 07-1827 SI, (N.D. Cal.), the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated pretrial proceedings numerous antitrust actions relating to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices for thin film transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in computer monitors, flat panel television sets, and other electronic devices. Among the cases transferred to the Court pursuant to the JPML's April 20, 2007 transfer order and the Court's July 3, 2007 related case pretrial order #1 are: The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and through Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee v. AU Optronics, et al., Case No. 3:11- cv-5781 SI CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-6241 SI Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-3763 SI MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-829 SI Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11- cv-2225 SI Tech Data Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-5765 SI Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-3205 SI. District Judge Susan Illston concluded in an order dated February 24, 2015, that the purposes behind consolidating these related actions in District Court have now been served. The Court has addressed numerous discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and other pretrial issues involving facts and legal questions common to the various cases in this MDL proceeding. No further pretrial motions raising common questions are pending in these cases, and remand to the transferor courts appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency, she said. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 10.1(b)(I) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the District Court suggests that the Panel remand these cases to their transferor courts. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/W7tDSSfrom Leagle.com. AUDAX GROUP: Faces Suit in Georgia Alleging Violations of TCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Luster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Audax Group, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; United Recovery Systems, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership; and Aid Associates, Inc. d/b/a Plaza Associates, a New York Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00489-MHC (N.D. Ga., February 18, 2015) alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Marvin Feagle, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 2374 Main Street, Suite B Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373-1970 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq. Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com krisskaar@aol.com BARRY FREUNDEL: Authorities Seek Possible Victims ------------------------------------------------- Derek Valcourt, writing for WJZ, reports that an appeal to the more than 150 women who may have been recorded by a disgraced rabbi. Prosecutors are trying to identify dozens of women who may not know they have been recorded. So far, only a few dozen women have come forward and been identified, but that's only about a fifth of the total number of women who police say were secretly recorded. Prosecutors now say they have video to prove orthodox rabbi Barry Freundel used cameras hidden in ordinary items like a clock radio to secretly record nude videos of as many as 152 women. The videos were taken at the Kesher Israel Synagogue in Washington, D.C. inside a private bath known as a mikvah and used for sacred rituals. Those who work at the synagogue are sickened. "It's very upsetting and distressing that I might have in some unintentional way helped him in his -- really all you can call it is an evil scheme," said Lisette Garcia. Mr. Freundel not only led the Kesher Israel congregation, he also taught religious studies at Towson University. He took some of his Towson students on field trips to the synagogue and sources tell WJZ he even offered some students, including non-Jewish students, extra credit if they agreed to use the mikvah. "The Towson group was preyed upon tremendously," said attorney Steve Silverman. Mr. Silverman represents about two dozen women in a class action civil lawsuit. Meanwhile, authorities are asking other possible victims to send in a photograph of themselves so they can identify the 88 women who qualify as victims in Mr. Freundel's criminal case. For each victim, he could face one year in prison. "Many of these victims are likely to be apprehensive in coming to court and being publicly identified as a victim. And that could work in his favor. But it only takes 20 victims to come forward, and you're looking at 20 years," said Mr. Silverman. Attorneys say there is a strong indication that this case will reach some sort of a plea deal. Mr. Freundel's next court hearing in the case is set for Feb. 19. Women who visited the mikvah at Kesher Israel Synagogue are urged to contact authorities. Possible victims are urged to send photographs of themselves clothed to USADC.BERNARDFREUNDELCASE@USDOJ.GOV , or you may also call 202-252-7585. BAYER INC: Faces Class Action Over Xarelto-Linked Deaths -------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Martin, writing for Calgary Sun, reports that Bayer Inc. is facing a class-action lawsuit in Calgary over an anticoagulant drug which has been allegedly linked to dozens of deaths. Toronto lawyer Bryan McPhadden said on Feb. 13 a similar action will soon be launched in Ontario, where an elderly woman bled to death while on the drug Xarelto. Mr. McPhadden said a decision will be made at a later date in which jurisdiction he'll seek to have the case certified as a class-action case. "If it's successful, it would be in the millions of dollars," Mr. McPhadden said, of the likely damages awarded. The representative plaintiff in the Calgary-filed action, Betty Samson, almost suffered cardiac arrest in September 2012 after developing internal bleeding while on Xarelto, according to a statement of claim. "The health care professionals who were treating Betty for this hemorrhaging had considerable difficulty in stopping her bleeding," the claim states. "They advised her that Xarelto was the cause of her hemorrhaging and that, unlike other anticoagulants such as Warfarin, there was no way to reverse the anticoagulant effects of Xarelto." The statement of claim cited a German report which suggested the drug was blamed for 130 deaths in 2012 and 2013. It also states there have been 1,100 reports of adverse effects registered with Health Canada. "A dozen of those adverse events registered with Health Canada indicated that death had resulted from Xarelto," the lawsuit says. Mr. McPhadden said he could not estimate how many Canadians may have been adversely impacted by the drug, but said his firm has been approached by four claimants, two in Alberta and two in Ontario. Their first client was the daughter of a woman who died in November 2013, he said. "She bled to death in the shower," Mr. McPhadden said, of the 83- year-old woman. The lawsuit stated that unlike other anticoagulants, there is no antidote to stop bleeding in patients taking the blood-thinning drug. "Because she was on Xarelto . . . there was little, or nothing, that could've been done for her," the lawyer said of the woman who died. The claim alleges Bayer and other companies involved in the manufacturing and distribution of the drug were negligent in its marketing. Statements of defense disputing the unproven allegations in the statement of claim have not been filed. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Agrees to Replace Cracked Wheels ------------------------------------------------------ Kat Greene, Lance Duroni and Megan Stride, writing for Law360, report that BMW of North America LLC will reimburse drivers of certain Z4 sports cars or pay to replace the car's crack-prone alloy wheels, and will shell out $635,000 to cover attorneys' fees, to end a putative class action in California federal court, according to a deal submitted for approval on Feb. 13. The carmaker reached a deal with the proposed class, which includes current and former owners and lessees of 2009-2012 model BMW Z4 vehicles with alloy BMW style 296 wheels, according to the filing. According to the terms outlined in the agreement submitted, BMW will reimburse car owners who, with some exceptions, have already paid out-of-pocket to replace their alloy wheels, and will cover the expense of those whose wheels need replacing. "On the record presented, this class settlement should withstand rigorous review," the plaintiffs wrote in the memo supporting their motion for preliminary approval of the deal. "Here, the parties engaged in investigation and discovery to be able to carefully consider the range of outcomes." Lead plaintiff Barry Jekowsky will get $5,000 in the deal, according to the filing. Mr. Jekowsky filed suit in May 2013, alleging that BMW Z4s from model years 2007-12 have alloy wheels that easily crack under regular use, creating a safety hazard. The defect often forces owners to replace the wheels, and sometimes the tires, in as little as 20,000 miles, but BMW refused to honor its 50,000-mile warranty for the problem, according to the suit. According to the complaint, Mr. Jekowsky leased a new 2011 BMW Z4 in February 2011, but in September 2012, after the car had been driven fewer than 19,300 miles, he discovered one of its rear wheels was cracked in several places. A BMW dealer told him the wheel and tire would need to be replaced, and the plaintiff went through a similar ordeal in December 2012, the complaint said. He alleges he was told both times that the wheel and tire damage was not covered under warranty and that he was obligated to pay for the repairs, which cost him roughly $2,000. BMW contended in a motion to dismiss that, because the plaintiff did not discover the alleged defect until a year after he leased his Z4, he had no claim for breach of implied warranty under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. BMW also challenged Mr. Jekowsky's claim for breach of express warranty, arguing the complaint only addresses design defects, while the warranty is limited to manufacturing defects. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White in December 2013 rejected BMW's bid to throw out the suit, finding that the plaintiff could potentially prove the defect existed within a one-year period of buying the car, according to that ruling. The judge also found that Mr. Jekowsky had alleged sufficient facts to support it was a manufacturing defect, according to the decision. Judge White dismissed unfair competition and other consumer claims, but left open the possibility of amending them, court records show. The plaintiffs are represented by Mark A. Chavez -- mark@chavezgertler.com -- of Chavez & Gertler LLP and Bryan Kemnitzer of Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg LLP. BMW is represented by Eric Y. Kizirian -- Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Michael K. Grimaldi -- Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. The case is Jekowsky v. BMW of North America LLC, case number 3:13-cv-02158, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. BREG INC: Cold Therapy Suit Removed to Federal Court Under CAFA --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a San Diego, Calif., County woman recently amended her lawsuit to include nationwide class action claims against a medical products manufacturer and four individuals. Stacy Lucas filed charges against BREG Inc. of fraud, omission or concealment of safety information, unfair competition practices including false advertising in June, but recently filed an amended class action complaint that the defendants have removed to federal court. Ms. Lucas alleges she and others acquired the BREG "Polar Care 500" cold therapy device by prescription from 1992 to the present. According to court papers, BREG allegedly received over 18 accident reports dating back to 1998 regarding tissue damage from this product categorized as "cold injury" similar to frostbite. According to the original complaint, BREG did not properly report these incidents to the FDA. The suit cites issues with the language contained in the instructions that condones "continuous use" for certain periods of time and alleges continued marketing despite consumer concerns. Defendants are: Orthofix International, NV of the Netherlands Antilles; Brad Mason, President and CEO of BREG; Greg Nelson, vice president and director; Gary Losse, officer and director of Oasis Sports Medical Group, Inc., who prescribed the product to the plaintiff; and Mark Howard, a former Oasis employee and a current BREG program director. All four individuals are San Diego County residents. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and reimbursement for the product cost and punitive damages, along with attorneys fees. She is represented by Marc Stern of the Law Office of Marc O. Stern, La Jolla, Calif. The defendants removed the case to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 6 under the Class Action Fairness Act. Usually removal occurs within a month of the original lawsuit being filed, but the defendants claim it is still proper in this case. "While this lawsuit has been pending for over three-and-a-half years, the plaintiffs still have not moved for certification and have only added their proposed nationwide class relatively recently," the removal notice says. "They added a new named plaintiff less than two months ago, and represented to the state court that they hope to add more." U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case number 3:15-cv-00258 CAC FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Lea Reich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. CAC Financial Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00851 (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 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 CAMP MINDEN: May Face Class Action Over 2012 Explosion ------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Ferrell, writing for KSLA, reports that the scars remain, long after the dust settled from that giant explosion 2 years ago in Camp Minden. Now, some of those affected most are keeping a close eye on the unfolding situation on what to do with all that M6 propellant discovered in the aftermath of the blast. KSLA News 12 has followed this story from the very beginning, in the fall of 2012, when a blast shook the ArkLaTex. It was only after that explosion that authorities would stumble upon the million of pounds of M6 artillery propellant improperly stored at Camp Minden. On Feb. 12, the first Minden Dialogue Committee meeting took place, to look for alternatives to dispose of that material, rather than burn it out in the open. It was the idea of an open burn that prompted a public outcry. Now some of the same victims of that huge blast 28 months ago are watching the committee process unfold. They're still worried that all the propellant could explode before a final solution can get underway. "See right there," said Gordon Barron, as he pointed to the hairline fractures running the length of his ceiling in his living room. It is a lasting reminder of the huge explosion at Camp Minden that shook the ArkLaTex late on the night of Monday, October 15, 2012. Gordon and his wife Faye still live less than a mile from where the bunker blast happened near the eastern portion of Camp Minden. "I don't know how to explain it but how it shook the house so bad," recalled Faye Barron. In fact, that explosion shoved the house several inches off its foundation. Gordon Barron described just knowing something serious was wrong with his home. "You could feel it. When you walked across the floor you could feel it." Within days of the bunker blast, repair crews arrived at the Barron's manufactured home, just north of Highway 80 on McIntyre Road in Minden. They put the home back onto its foundation properly. But there was still the damage inside. They decided that they didn't want their insurance company to foot that bill. Now two years later, they're still hoping to join a class action lawsuit." In their kitchen, Faye got on the phone during our visit. "I was calling about that class action lawsuit," started Faye. Webster Parish Sheriff Gary Sexton had given the Barron's a phone number for that class action lawsuit. It was the number for attorney Kyle Robinson in Bossier City. During Faye's call, they could not confirm whether or not their names are on the list of people involved in that class action lawsuit. She was told a form would be mailed to her, to fill out and return. As for the status of that case, she was told it's stopped right now after the bankruptcy of Explo Systems, Inc., the company behind the massive explosion. For now, Faye and Gordon Barron will watch the Minden Dialogue Committee's actions carefully, to make sure all that M6 propellant is disposed of properly. They also want to make sure there's no repeat performance that would ever damage their home again. CATAMARAN CORP: Sued for Low-Balling Pharmacy Reimbursements ------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a company that oversees prescription drug reimbursements for thousands of independent pharmacies has been accused of using undisclosed accounting formulas to justify low rebates paid to the members in its benefits network, according to a class action lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The suit, filed by 55 independent pharmacies, includes a large amount of business owners from Pennsylvania, all seeking restitution against Catamaran Corporation based on four counts of breach of contract. The plaintiffs demand payment from the difference between Catamaran's reimbursements for generic drugs and the commercially reasonable rates, plus a more transparent system to inform pharmacy managers of the company's rates and changes. In court documents, the pharmacies claim Catamaran inflates the patient's cost for prescription drugs through overcharging insurance plans while underpaying the pharmacies that dispense the drugs. Catamaran determines the amount of reimbursement pharmacies receive for providing generic medications and other pharmaceutical products. But the pharmacies claim in their filing that Catamaran sets unreasonably low rates, makes pricing data inaccessible, infrequently updates the data, and lacks transparency on how drug rebates are or are not applied, all to the detriment of patients and pharmacies. Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are selected by health insurance companies and government health programs to administer pharmaceutical drug plans. The plaintiffs allege that patient choice is becoming increasingly limited by these health plans' specific selection of Catamaran, which could drive independent pharmacies out of business through manipulation of reimbursement prices as well as other practices. The relationship between Catamaran and the independent pharmacies is contractual in nature, but Catamaran does not directly negotiate these contracts, the suit says. Instead, the contracts are usually negotiated in bulk through pharmacy services administration organizations (PSAO), the suit says. According to the claim, Catamaran exploits independent pharmacies' required reliance on PSAOs in order to keep critical aspects of the contracts hidden through confidentiality agreements with the PSAOs. Catamaran's practice of not disclosing new pricing until a claim adjudicates constitutes bad faith and unfair dealing, the claim says, because it denies pharmacies the opportunity to plan for changes in reimbursement and will inevitably cause financial harm to those pharmacies. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC in Philadelphia. CLANTON, AL: Justice Department Weighs on Detention Misuse ---------------------------------------------------------- Timothy M. Phelphs, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that the Justice Department weighed in Feb. 13 on the alleged misuse of detention in local jails, an issue that has become a focus for criminal justice reformers. The department filed a legal document known as a statement of interest in a suit against the city of Clanton, Ala. The case, filed on behalf of several local residents by Equal Justice Under Law, a nonprofit, alleges that courts in the town, which is in the central part of the state, hold low-income people in jail even on relatively small charges if they can't afford to post bail. "The criminal justice system should not work differently for the indigent and the wealthy" acting Assistant Atty. Gen. Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division said in a statement. "Bail practices that create a two-tiered system of justice by treating the indigent and the wealthy differently undermine fundamental fairness in our nation's criminal justice system," the statement said. The suit, filed as a class action in January, cites the case of Christy Varden, a 41-year-old mother of two who was arrested outside a Wal-Mart in Clanton for shoplifting, resisting arrest, failure to obey a police officer and possession of drug paraphernalia. The suit says Ms. Varden's only income is $200 a month in food stamps. When she was unable to pay $2,000 in bail -- $500 per charge -- she was told she would be held in jail at least until the next court session a week later, the suit says. The suit charges that Clanton requires bail of $500 for every misdemeanor except driving under the influence, for which the minimum is $1,000. A similar case has been filed against Montgomery, the state capital. According to the Justice Department filing, any system of bail that does not account for the ability of a defendant to pay violates the Constitution by denying poor people the "equal protection of the laws" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The city denies that its practices are unconstitutional. The issue of bail has drawn increased attention from groups that defend the rights of the poor. The Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit justice-policy group, issued a report saying that the number of people held in local jails, as well as the length of time they are held, has increased in many jurisdictions. Inability to pay court-imposed bail or fines was a major reason, the report said. CHOCOLATE BY DESIGN: Recalls Milk Chocolate Pops Due to Eggs ------------------------------------------------------------ Chocolate By Design Inc. of Ronkonkoma, NY, is recalling its Milk Chocolate "Assorted Character Icing Pops", "Christmas Icing Pops" and "Triple Heart Icing Pops" because they contain undeclared eggs. The Icing Pops may also contain trace amounts of FD&C colors Yellow 5 or 6, Red 3 or 40, and/or Blue 1. People who have allergies to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The Milk Chocolate "Assorted Character Pops", "Christmas Icing Pops" and "Triple Heart Icing Pops" were sold to several customers in New York, New Jersey and Virginia from September 2014 through February 1, 2015 for retail sales. The milk chocolate Icing Pops are made to order and sold in unmarked bulk boxes containing 24 assorted Icing Pops per box. Each Icing Pop is individually wrapped for retail sale in 2 oz. clear cellophane with a curl ribbon closure. The Icing Pops are not coded. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after it was discovered during the current FDA inspection that the Milk Chocolate Icing Pops were distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of egg and the certified food colors. Production of the "Assorted Character Icing Pops", "Christmas Icing Pops" and "Triple Heart Icing Pops" has been suspended until the labeling has been corrected. Consumers who have purchased any of the 2 oz. "Assorted Character Icing Pops", "Christmas Icing Pops" and "Triple Heart Icing Pops" are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-631- 737-0082, Mon - Friday 9 am - 4 pm EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434935.htm. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Settles MBS Class Action for $235 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal, Michael Lipkin, Evan Weinberger and Pete Brush, writing for Law360, report that Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. and UBS Securities LLC agreed on Feb. 13 to pay $235 million to end a class action brought by a pension fund that bought mortgage-backed securities from the former Residential Capital LLC alleging the underwriters issued false prospectuses. According to a motion for preliminary settlement approval filed by New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund in New York federal court on Feb. 13, the underwriters settlement will bring to an end a yearslong suit over the sale of mortgage-backed securities to the fund and other investors in a number of offerings from 2006 to 2007 that were issued and sold by Residential Accredit Loans Inc., Ally Securities LLC and other affiliates. Plaintiffs alleged the prospectuses issued in connection with the securities contained material misstatements and omissions. In their motion for preliminary settlement approval, the plaintiffs note that including a $100 million settlement reached with the issuer defendants in 2013, the $335 million global cash settlement represents "one of the highest" recoveries among all MBS class actions and was reached only after years of litigation of complex issues in federal district and appellate court. "It is this unique litigation history that strongly supports preliminary approval of the proposed underwriter settlement and the plan of allocation for the $335 million in settlement funds as well as the notices regarding the same, since the terms of all of these agreements were only accomplished after years of hard-fought litigation," the motion says. Under the settlement, the fund will be distributed to three tiers of putative class members, each based on the strength of their claims at the time of settlement. The investors filed suit in September 2008, alleging that the RALI certificates' seller, Residential Capital, and the underwriter defendants were liable for failing to disclose weaknesses in the underlying loans in some 59 offerings. In the lead-up to the financial crisis, Residential Capital had become one of the largest issuers of MBS in the world and it used its heft to find rating agencies who would give its pools of often subprime mortgages better ratings, according to the plaintiffs. The certificates all collapsed in value and received junk ratings when many of the underlying loans went into default or were foreclosed on, the plaintiffs alleged. They contended the offering statements Residential Capital put out lied about how stringent the mortgage originators' lending guidelines were. In 2010, however, a district court partially granted the defendants motion to dismiss and tossed 55 offerings from the suit, leaving four at issue. After an appeal to the Second Circuit and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, a district court judge in April 2013 added back 13 offerings to the case, according to the Feb. 13 motion. The ruling followed the Second Circuit's 2012 decision in NECA- IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., which held that funds stemming from the "same set of concerns" could be folded into lawsuits. Of the offerings thus included in the suit, Citi underwrote certificates in four of those Offerings, Goldman Sachs underwrote certificates in 10, and UBS underwrote certificates in three, according to the Feb. 13 motion. In July 2013, the issuer defendants agreed to pay $100 million in cash to settle the claims against them. Plaintiffs attorney Joel Laitman -- jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC hailed the partial settlement at the time as an "excellent result," especially since RALI and affiliated defendants Residential Capital, Residential Funding LLC and Residential Financial LLC filed voluntary petitions seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2012. The case against the underwriters proceeded, and in December 2013, the district court ruled that, almost a year after allowing intervening plaintiffs to proceed in the suit, the Second Circuit's decision in Police & Fire Retirement System of City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS Inc. meant that the intervening plaintiffs could not join the suit after all, and dismissed Deutsche Securities Inc. from the suit. On Feb. 13, the plaintiffs asked the court to approve the $235 million settlement, noting that it was reached in November 2014 after multiple days of negotiations held before retired Judge Daniel Weinstein, "one of the most experienced and respected mediators in the county," over a period of four months. The plaintiffs pension funds and settlement class are represented by Joel P. Laitman, Christopher Lometti, Michael Eisenkraft, Richard Speirs, Daniel B. Rehns, Kenneth M. Rehns, Steven J. Toll, Joshua S. Devore and S. Douglas Bunch -- dbunch@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, except for the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, which is separately represented by Robin F. Zwerling -- rzwerling@zsz.com -- and Jeffrey C. Zwerling -- jzwerling@zsz.com -- of Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP. The underwriter defendants are represented by William G. McGuinness -- william.mcguinness@friedfrank.com -- Israel David and Alfred L. Fatale III -- alfred.fatale@friedfrank.com -- of Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, and Brad S. Karp, Daniel J. Kramer and Richard A. Rosen -- rrosen@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP. The case is New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund et al. v. Residential Capital LLC et al., case number 1:08-cv-08781, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. CMS BANCORP: Party to Class Action Settlement Agreement ------------------------------------------------------- CMS Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that as announced on February 2, 2015 in definitive additional proxy materials filed with the SEC, CMS Bancorp was a party to a settlement agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 30, 2015, which resolved a purported class action lawsuit that was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on January 14, 2015. COLORADO: Court Dismisses "Loggins" Pro Se Suit ----------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Lewis T. Babcock of the District of Colorado ruled on the applicant's motion in the case VINCENT E. LOGGINS, Applicant, v. FISHER, RALPH CARR, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-02652-GPG (D. Colo.) The applicant Vincent E. Loggins is housed at the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo, Colorado. He initiated an action by filing a pro se pleading, in which Magistrate Judge Boland found deficiencies and directed Mr. Loggins to cure it. In response to Magistrate Judge Boland's order to cure deficiencies, Mr. Loggins submitted 17 filings and paid $400 to the Court. Two of the filings are requests to proceed in forma pauperis; and three of the seventeen filings are a Title VII Complaint, a Prisoner Complaint, and an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. On November 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order that found Mr. Loggins has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Magistrate Judge Gallagher also told Mr. Loggins that he may not file a 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 application and a prisoner complaint in the same action and that he must file one or the other but not both within thirty days of the November 11 Order. Subsequently, Mr. Loggins filed a Prisoner Complaint, two Applications for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, two Motions and Affidavits for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action, and a copy of a Letter that he sent to a judge on March 2, 2012. Mr. Loggins then submitted an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 and a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action on November 20, 2014. Judge Babcock denied Mr. Loggins leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 because he has sufficient funds in his Colorado Department of Human Services Account to pay the $5 filing fee. The application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied for lack of jurisdiction, and the action is dismissed. No certificate of appealability shall be issued because applicant has not made a substantial showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the procedural ruling is correct and whether the underlying claim has constitutional merit. All other pending motions are denied as moot. A copy of Judge Babcock's order dated January 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/BZbiAOfrom Leagle.com. Vincent E. Loggins, Plaintiff, Pro Se COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xfinity Wifi Hot-Spots ------------------------------------------------------------ Sean Lavin, writing for ClickOrlando.com, reports that Comcast faces a class action for allegedly converting home cable modems into public wifi hot spot. Christal Hayes has been living in her east Orlando home for about a year and had no idea her home Internet could be accessed by anyone nearby. That's right. A complete stranger without cable can pay Comcast by the week, day or hour to log in to her home modem. And existing Comcast customers can user her internet for free. "I never got anything, at least from my knowledge, in the mail about anything that was going on," she said. "So the fact that they're allowing this to happen and they don't even give their customers notice is unbelievable to me." Comcast said it did send customers notices that in addition to their password-protected hot spot, a second public hotspot called "Xfinity Wi-Fi" was activated on their modems. But many customers, like Hayes, don't remember getting it, and some, may not have thought it was important and just threw it away. Local 6 showed Hayes how easy it was to log on to her home modem. "You did that in like two seconds, and you accessed my internet and everything," she said. According to a lawsuit filed by a customer in California, people like Hayes are stuck paying an additional $20 to $30 dollars in electricity costs annually -- even if no one uses the hotspot. And if a stranger does hop on, the electricity costs climb another 30 to 40 percent, according to the suit. "Our power bill's enough as it is," Ms. Hayes said. "We live in Florida. It's hot. If anyone is using my power it should be me." Comcast disagrees with the allegation in the lawsuit. But while its modem is built "to support robust usage," the company admits sharing one modem can have "some impact" on WiFi speed as more devices share the network. Comcast stands by its decision to create a bigger hot spot network and says "it provides real benefits to our customers." The lawsuit raises security concerns. "Since Comcast uses the Xfinity Wi-Fi Hotspot to allow strangers to connect to the Internet through the same wireless router used by Comcast customers in their homes, the data and information on a Comcast customer's network is at greater risk," according to the lawsuit. But Comcast says it committed to making customers' Wi-Fi experience as safe as possible, and has strong security measures in place. Even though both hot spots come from the same home modem, guests on the public hotspot, like a babysitter, can't access the private user's home network, according to the company. As for Hayes, she wasn't comfortable keeping her modem's public WiFi hotspot online. "I'd definitely be interested in turning it off -- right now!" Hayes said. So Local 6 walked her through the steps Comcast published for its customers who want to turn it off. And with a few strokes of a keyboard, she shut off strangers from accessing her internet. According to Comcast, less than one percent of its customers have chosen to shut the public feature off so far. Bright House Networks, which has a larger local customer base than Comcast, does not have a similar feature, according to a Bright House spokesperson. CON YEAGER: Recalls Various Cumin Products Due to Peanuts --------------------------------------------------------- Con Yeager Spice Company has previously issued a voluntary recall for multiple sized packages under multiple brand names of ground cumin and multiple seasoning blends (containing ground cumin) due to undeclared Peanut allergens in the ground cumin. The company is revising its list of affected products to correct several brand names and provide additional gift box information. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. To date, there have been no consumer complaints or reports of allergic reactions at this time. Con Yeager Spice Company is asking customers at risk for peanut allergies to discontinue using the product immediately. Consumers with any questions may contact Con Yeager Spice Company's customer service at 1-800-222- 2460 {Monday- Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30 PM EST). The affected products with revised brand names and additional gift box information include: BRAND ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEM KEY ITEM LOT ---- ----------------- -------- -------- ANTHONY JR.'S WING & FRY DUST 31165 .215271 PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & WING & FRY DUST 30254 .215132 JOHNSONBURG BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & GROUND CUMIN SEED 30851 .215118 JOHNSONBURG BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & WING & FRY DUST 30967 .211195 JOHNSONBURG BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & WING & FRY DUST 30967 .215123 JOHNSONBURG BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & WING & FRY DUST 30967 .215123 JOHNSONBURG BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & WING & FRY DUST 30967 .215128 JOHNSONBURG BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & WING & FRY DUST 30967 .21S132 JOHNSONBURG BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & WING & FRY DUST 31165 .211205 JOHNSONBURG BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & WING & FRY DUST 31165 .215096 JOHNSONBURG BILO FOODS,RIDGWAY & WING & FRY DUST 31165 .215128 JOHNSONBURG BLISS SHURFINE FOOD DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .212653 MARKET BLISS SHURFINE FOOD DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .216805 MARKE Con Yeager Spice BBQ PITI BEEF 38767 .212023 Company SEASONING Con Yeager Spice BRINGHURST CATERIN 37827 .208995 Company BBQ Con Yeager Spice GODSHALL'S S0111 36959 .212497 Company Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 30383 .214915 Company (Mojo Seasoning) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 33886 .214915 Company (Mojito Lime Rub & Marinade) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 30383 .215419 Company (Mojo Seasoning) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 3388 .215410 Company (Mojito Lime Rub & Marinade) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 30383 .215665 Company (Mojo Seasoning) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 33886 .215665 Company (Mojito Lime Rub & Marinade) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 30383 .217616 Company (Mojo Seasoning) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 33886 .217607 Company (Mojito Lime Rub & Marinade) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 30383 .218709 Company (Mojo Seasoning) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 33886 .218700 Company (Mojito Lime Rub & Marinade) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 30383 .219064 Company (Mojo Seasoning) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 33886 .219055 Company (Mojito Lime Rub & Marinade) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 30383 .219197 Company (Mojo Seasoning) Con Yeager Spice GOURMET GIFT BOX 33886 .219188 Company (Mojito Lime Rub & Marinade) Con Yeager Spice HAMMANN'S BBQ 32799 .21141 Company SEASONING Con Yeager Spice KITCHEN GIFT BOX 30499 .214926 Company (Chili Powder Dark) Con Yeager Spice KITCHEN GIFT BOX 30499 .215406 Company (Chili Powder Dark) Con Yeager Spice KITCHEN GIFT BOX 30499 .216031 Company (Chili Powder Dark) Con Yeager Spice KITCHEN GIFT BOX 30499 .217564 Company (Chili Powder Dark) Con Yeager Spice KITCHEN GIFT BOX 30499 .217603 Company (Chili Powder Dark) Con Yeager Spice KITCHEN GIFT BOX 30499 .217717 Company (Chili Powder Dark) Con Yeager Spice KITCHEN GIFT BOX 30499 .218696 Company (Chili Powder Dark) Con Yeager Spice MOJITO LIME RUB & 37040 .214294 Company MARINADE Con Yeager Spice MOJO SEASONING 30651 .219084 Company Con Yeager Spice PAPA WOOD BBQ ALL 38755 .219098 Company PURPOSE RUB Con Yeager Spice WING & FRY DUST 30556 .219085 Company CORNERSBURG ITALIAN DARK CHILI POWDER 30085 .215803 SPECIALTIES COSTA'S FOOD CENTER BEEF RUB 30788 .217262 VENISON BARBEQUE COSTA'S MARKET WING & FRY DUST 30556 .216621 JAMES FERRARI& SONS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .218967 FEZELL'S COUNTY MARKET DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .217497 G & E SUPERMARKET MOJITO LIME RUB & 37045 .208914 IHOCKER SUPER CENTER MARINADE G & E SUPERMARKET MOJITO LIME RUB 37045 .211551 IHOCKER SUPER CENTER & MARINADE HOMEMADE MEMORIES DARK CHILI POWDER 30811 .215650 BAKERY IDEAL SUPER MARKETS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .216080 IDEAL SUPER MARKETS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .219332 JACK BELL'S MEATS BEEF RUB 30788 .214779 VENISON BARBEQUE JACK BELL'S MEATS BEEF RUB 30788 .219313 VENISON BARBEQUE JACK BELL'S MEATS BEEF RUB 30890 .214783 BARBECUE JACK BELL'S MEATS CUMIN GROUND SEED 31049 .219323 JACK BELL'S MEATS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .210164 JACK BELL'S MEATS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .210896 JACK BELL'S MEATS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .214776 JACK BELL'S MEATS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .219309 JACOB AND SONS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .211237 JACOB AND SONS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .215141 LAUDERMILCH MEATS WING & FRY DUST 30556 .216020 BAKERY & DELI MERCIK'S IDEAL MARKET DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .215535 MIKE'S SUPERMARKET WING & FRY DUST 30556 .215047 1#542 MILLER MEATS & FOOD WING & FRY DUST 30556 .217852 SHOP N SAVE MOUNT GROUND CUMIN SEED 30491 .216086 PLEASANT NASER PACKING CO. WING & FRY DUST 30556 .211114 NASER PACKING CO. WING & FRY DUST 30556 .214988 NASER PACKING CO. WING & FRY DUST 30556 .215752 NASER PACKING CO. WING & FRY DUST 30556 .219586 NASER PACKING CO. WING & FRY DUST 31165 .209850 NASER PACKING CO. WING & FRY DUST 31165 .215752 NASER PACKING CO. WING & FRY DUST 31165 .217903 NASER PACKING CO. WING & FRY DUST 31165 .219586 NASER PACKING CO. WING & FRY DUST 31165 .219874 NEW CASTLE SHOP-N-SAVE GROUND CUMIN SEED 31049 .216002 ROBERT WHOLEY COMPANY WING & FRY DUST 30556 .209954 ROBERT WHOLEY COMPANY WING & FRY DUST 30556 .219099 ROBERT WHOLEY COMPANY WING & FRY DUST 31165 .209954 ROBERT WHOLEY COMPANY WING & FRY DUST 31165 .218052 SHOP N SAVE GROUND CUMIN SEED 30491 .215254 SHOP N SAVE WING & FRY DUST 31165 .215195 SHOP N SAVE WING & FRY DUST 31165 .215694 SHOP N SAVE EXPRESS DARK CHILI 31009 .215830 POWDER SHOP N SAVE EXPRESS WING & FRY 31165 .211295 DUST SHOP N SAVE WING & FRY DUST 30556 .215636 (WEST MIFFLIN) SHOP N SAVE, MOUNT PLEASANT DARK CHILI 30483 .216248 POWDER SHOP N SAVE, MOUNT PLEASANT GROUND 30491 .216246 CUMIN SEED SHOP-N-SAVE DARK CHILI POWDER 30483 .217469 SHOP-N-SAVE WING & FRY DUST 30556 .217454 THOMA MEAT MARKET WING & FRY DUST 31165 .217777 THORNE'S BARBECUE BEEF RUB 30890 .213446 THORNE'S DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .212475 THORNE'S DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .213441 THORNE'S DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .216717 THORNE'S DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .218195 THORNE'S DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .218341 THORNE'S DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .218605 THORNE'S GROUND CUMIN SEED 31049 .214614 THORNE'S GROUND CUMIN SEED 31049 .216712 THORNE'S GROUND CUMIN SEED 31049 .217839 THORNE'S GROUND CUMIN SEED 31049 .218596 THORNE'S TACO SUPREME 37350 .216675 SEASONING THORNE'S TACO SUPREME 37350 .217818 SEASONING THORNE'S TACO SUPREME 37350 .218576 SEASONING TOM'S RIVERSIDE GROUND CUMIN SEED 30491 .217974 TOM'S RIVERSIDE WING & FRY DUST 30556 .217969 TRADER HORN #10 VENISON BEEF RUB 30788 .215491 BARBEQUE TRADER HORN #10 BEEF RUB 30890 .215475 BARBECUE TRADER HORN #10 DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .215488 TRADER HORN #10 WING & FRY DUST 31165 .215476 TRADER HORN #2VENISON BEEF RUB 30788 .213770 BARBEQUE TRADER HORN #2VENISON BEEF RUB 30788 .219209 BARBEQUE TRADER HORN #2 BEEF RUB 30890 .213757 BARBEQUE TRADER HORN #2 BEEF RUB 30890 .218332 BARBEQUE TRADER HORN #2 DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .213768 TRADER HORN #2 WING & FRY DUST 31165 .211085 TRADER HORN #2 WING & FRY DUST 31165 .218333 TRADER HORN #6 VENISON BEEF RUB 30788 .213938 BARBEQUE Valeski's BILo GROUND CUMIN SEED 30491 .217102 Valeski's BILo DARK CHILI POWDER 31009 .212909 Valeski's BILo WING & FRY DUST 31165 .217110 WARRINGTON FARM MEATS WING & FRY DUST 30016 .216158 WARRINGTON FARM MEATS WING & FRY DUST 30016 .219714 WARRINGTON FARM MEATS DARK CHILI POWDER 30085 .216155 WARRINGTON FARM MEATS GROUND CUMIN SEED 31049 .216156 WARRINGTON FARM MEATS WING & FRY DUST 31165 .219714 DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Dawson Geophysical Company on October 8, 2014, entered into a merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") with TGC Industries, Inc., a Texas corporation ("TGC"), and Riptide Acquisition Corp., a Texas corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of TGC ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing after the merger as the surviving entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of TGC (the "Merger"). Dawson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that on January 7, 2015, Andrew Speese, through his attorney, filed a purported shareholder class action and derivative action on behalf of himself and the Company's other shareholders in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland/Odessa Division), against the Company, its current directors, TGC and Riptide Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of TGC ("Merger Sub"). The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed strategic business combination with TGC, and that TGC's registration statement dated November 6, 2014, as subsequently amended, and prospectus filed on December 31, 2014 contain material omissions and materially misleading statements. The complaint seeks to enjoin us, TGC and Merger Sub from taking any actions that would allow the consummation of the proposed strategic business combination contemplated by the Merger Agreement or, in the event that the proposed strategic business combination is consummated, seeks a judgment for damages." DEL MONTE: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $7.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Nidever, writing for The Sentinel, reports that Del Monte has agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle claims that workers were underpaid at the Del Monte packing plant south of Hanford, according to court documents. Lawyers for Del Monte Foods Inc. couldn't be immediately reached for comment. In the class-action case, named plaintiffs Robert Montgomery, Araceli Negrete and Carol Philips claimed that, at various times during their employment at the Kings County location, workers weren't being allowed to clock out for required 30-minute meal breaks. The suit further alleged that Del Monte automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from employees' time sheets whether the breaks were actually taken or not. Plaintiffs asserted that, because of the automatic deduction, workers were cheated out of overtime pay they would otherwise have been entitled to. The alleged violations take on added significance because about 75 percent of the Hanford Del Monte plant's workers are seasonal, only working from July to October. During that four-month packing season, the number of employees at the facility swells to about 1,200. The suit also claimed that Del Monte required workers to work off the clock when putting on/taking off required equipment and clothing, that Del Monte provided inaccurate wage statements and that the company illegally delayed final paychecks to workers who quit, were fired or were laid off. In the court records, attorneys representing Del Monte denied all the allegations. The suit sought restitution, civil penalties and attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs. The $7.5 million settlement, agreed to in principle last year, is to be spread out among as many as 6,000 employees. The plaintiffs' attorneys are to receive $2.5 million, leaving $5 million available for the 6,000 aggrieved employees. That works out to roughly $833 for each worker, depending on how many weeks they worked at Del Monte. The lawsuit was filed in 2013, but covers a period going back to 2010. According to court documents, the named plaintiffs no longer work for Del Monte. The settlement hasn't been finalized. A hearing is scheduled for May 18 in Kings County Superior Court. The lawsuit is similar to a separate legal action filed in January against Leprino Foods that alleges the same types of workplace violations occurred at that company's facilities in Lemoore. That litigation is ongoing. EL POPOCATEPETL: Recalls Flavored Wraps Products Due to Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ El Popocatepetl Ind., Inc. of Chicago, Illinois is voluntarily recalling El Popocatepet's 8 in. Chipotle, Spinach Pesto, and Sun Dried Tomato Wraps because they may contain undeclared milk and Yellow #5. People who have allergies to milk and/or Yellow #5 run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. El Popocatepetl's 8in. Flavored Wraps were distributed in the state of Illinois, primarily in the Chicago area. The information on how the recalled products can be identified is listed below: Product Name: 8in. Sundried Tomato Brand Name: El Popocatepetl Description: 8in. Tomato Flavored Wrap UPC: 0 20784 99505 7 Any Product with the Best By Date of April 1, 2015 and Before. Product Name: 8in. Spinach Pest Brand Name: El Popocatepetl Description: 8in. Spinach Flavored Wrap UPC: 0 20784 58314 8 Any Product with the Best By Date of April 1, 2015 and Before. Product Name: 8in. Chipotle Brand Name: El Popocatepetl Description: 8in. Chipotle Flavored Wrap UPC: 0 20784 78248 0 Any Product with the Best By Date of April 1, 2015 and Before. The recall was initiated during a review of the product ingredients and the labeled ingredients revealed milk and Yellow #5 was present in an ingredient used to make the flavored wraps but not listed as ingredients on the labels. No Illnesses have been reported to date. All recalled products are being removed from the store shelves. No other El Popocatepetl products are involved in this recall. Consumers who have purchased the recalled product can return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the Company Consumer Department at 773-843-0888. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435191.htm FAIRWAY LIKE: Recalls Raw Hazelnuts Due to Salmonella ----------------------------------------------------- Fairway "Like No Other Market" of New York, NY, is recalling Fairway brand Raw Hazelnuts (Filberts), because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The Fairway brand Raw Hazelnuts (Filberts) were distributed to Fairway stores in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, and also through home delivery programs provided by Google and Instacart. The product is packaged in clear, plastic cello bags of varying weights, each weighing less than one pound. The product bears Item Code 228119 XXXXXX. All "SELL BY" Date codes of May 15, 2015 and earlier are being recalled. There have been no reported illnesses to date. The recall is the result of a routine sampling program by the FDA which revealed that the finished product contained the bacteria. The company has ceased distribution of the Fairway brand Raw Hazelnut (Filberts) and removed the product from Fairway store shelves as the FDA and the company continues their investigation as to what caused the problem. Consumers who purchased the Fairway brand Raw Hazelnuts (Filberts) should return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (855) 856-9566, Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435551.htm FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Dismissed Prisoner's Appeal ------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court in the case GLENN SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARDEN, HARDEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, in its official and individual capacities, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in its official and individual capacities, et al. Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-12243 (11th Cir.) The applicant Glen Smith, a Florida prisoner, filed a complaint against the warden of the Hardee Correctional Institution, the supervisor of library services, and Kathy Connor, an employee of the Department of Corrections. Smith alleged that the three individuals interfered with his right to access to the courts in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and state law; the Warden and Eugenia Wellhausen, an employee of the Department, conducted unreasonable searches of his cell in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and the Warden, Connor, and Wellhausen supplied inadequate clothing and bedding to protect inmates against the weather in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Smith sought an order to compel the Warden of Hardee, the supervisor of library services for Hardee, and Kathy Connor, an employee of the Department, to provide word processing and copy services for him. Together with his complaint, Smith also filed a motion for preliminary injunction, motion for class certification and appointment of counsel for the class action and motion to recover the costs related to service process. The district court dismissed Smith's complaint for non-compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), and denied all motions filed by Smith. Smith filed an amended complaint, in which the trial court made a partial dismissal and a partial summary judgment against Smith's amended complaint. Smith took an appeal, pro se, of the dismissal without prejudice of his original complaint, and the partial dismissal and partial summary judgment against his amended complaint. Smith also challenges the denial of his motions for preliminary injunction, for class certification and appointment of counsel for the class action, and for sanctions; the partial denial of his motion to recover the costs related to service of process; and the award of costs to the officials. The Eleventh Circuit court affirmed the district court's judgment in a per curiam decision dated January 7, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/2iN82qfrom Leagle.com. The Eleventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges William H. Pryor, Beverly B. Martin and R. Lanier Anderson III. FORD MOTOR: Judge Tosses Defect Power Steering Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge on Feb. 12 tossed without prejudice an "unwieldy" proposed class action accusing Ford Motor Co. of concealing defective power steering systems that are prone to sudden and premature failure on its Focus and Fusion models. U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh did not delve deeply into her reasoning for granting Ford's motion to dismiss in the two-page order beyond noting that the complaint's deficiencies had been identified on the record. She gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend and more narrowly focus their complaint. "Plaintiffs' 108-page first amended complaint listing 51 causes of action, including 49 claims specific to the laws of six states and two nationwide claims based on the laws of 44 additional states, is unwieldy in scope and unduly burdensome," she said. Judge Koh ordered the parties to meet prior to a case management conference and encouraged them to explore all options to try and narrow the case, including entering into a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice subject to a tolling agreement or to agree to a stay of certain claims. The plaintiffs are barred from adding new causes of action or parties without her permission, according to the order. The June 2014 complaint claims that Ford has known since at least 2010 about the defective steering system but has repeatedly denied that the system is defective, despite receiving hundreds of complaints from consumers. As a result, the complaint asks that the automaker be barred from asserting a statute of limitations defense. The suit claims that Ford has marketed the electronic power assisted steering system sensors as allowing drivers to achieve steering "that feels just right" and that it "helps keep you planted and in control," statements that contrast sharply with the problems customers have experienced. Specifically, the suit alleges that the power steering system is defectively designed and that Ford misrepresented the system's safety and efficiency. The automaker told consumers that the system detects road conditions, such as crowned road surfaces or crosswinds, and adjusts the steering system to help drivers compensate for pulling and drifting, according to the suit. The amended complaint, filed in September, sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers who had purchased the affected vehicles, as well as statewide classes in California, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, Illinois, and Arizona. Claims brought in the suit for the proposed nationwide class alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and fraudulent concealment, while claims for the state classes incorporated a wide range of the various states' consumer protection and breach of warranty laws. In its motion to dismiss, Ford had argued that the complaint contained no specific facts about the plaintiffs' own claims, and instead relied on "quoting other consumers' complaints, accusing Ford of fraud 'on information and belief,' and trying to depict the possibility of having to steer a relatively small car manually as an unreasonably dangerous hazard." Models that include the defective steering system include the 2010-2014 Ford Fusion; 2010-2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid; 2013-2014 Ford Fusion Energi; 2012-2014 Ford Focus; and 2012-2014 Ford Focus Electric, according to the suit. The plaintiffs are represented by Roland Tellis, Mark Pifko and Isaac Miller of Baron & Budd PC; Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren, Justin S. Brooks, and Mary S. Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer PA; and Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- and Nathan B. Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC. Ford Motor Co. is represented by Frank P. Kelly III, M. Kevin Underhill, Andrew L. Chang, and Amir M. Nassihi of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. The case is Philips et al v. Ford Motor Company, case number 5:14- cv-02989 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Gingko Biloba -------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that health product retailer GNC was sued on Feb. 5 over claims one of its products was mislabeled. Stacey Wright's lawsuit in Pennsylvania federal court against GNC alleges its ginkgo biloba product doesn't actually contain ginkgo biloba. The suit comes after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman conducted DNA tests on the product, and on Feb. 3 said the tests found no ginkgo biloba in the product. The attorney general issued a cease-and-desist letter to GNC, directing the company to stop selling the product in the State of New York. In addition to seeking class status for anyone who purchased the ginkgo biloba product since Feb. 6, 2009, the lawsuit also seeks a sub-class for all Pennsylvania citizens who purchased the product. The lawsuit alleges GNC has only pulled the product from New York shelves, but not from other stores around the country. GNC also hasn't offered to refund purchases of the product to anyone, including in New York, it says. The plaintiff seeks class status, more than $5 million in damages and court costs in the lawsuit. The plaintiff is represented by Stephen DeNittis of DeNittis Osefchen, P.C., in Philadelphia. United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania case number 2:15-cv-00566 GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Weiss and Zissey Holczler, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00854 (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are 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 HAMPDEN BANCORP: Faces "Levy" Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Hampden Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a purported stockholder of Hampden Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") filed on or about February 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Massachusetts for Hampden County against the Company, the Company's board of directors, and Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. ("Berkshire"), captioned Brian Levy v. Hampden Bancorp, Inc. et al. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, and that Berkshire aided and abetted those breaches, by engaging in an allegedly unfair process leading to the Company's sale to Berkshire and by allegedly failing to maximize value for the Company's stockholders. The lawsuit also alleges that the Company's proxy statement contained material omissions. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, equitable relief enjoining the sale agreement. The Company believes this complaint is baseless and without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. HANBIT ENTERPRISES: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Health Risks --------------------------------------------------------------- Hanbit Enterprises, Inc., dba Jack and the Beanstalk, is recalling Soybean Sprouts in 1lb, 1.5lb, 10 lb, and Natto plastic bags distributed up to and including February 12, 2015 with Best if Used by dates up to February 19, 2015, because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer long-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The soybean sprouts were distributed to Bay Area stores and restaurants. --- 1LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12366-9 --- 1.5LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12365-2 --- 10LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12351-5 --- NATTO SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12367-6 No illnesses that have been reported to date. The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the FDA which revealed that the finished products contained the Listeria bacteria. The company has ceased the production and distribution of the product as FDA and the company continues their investigation as to what caused the problem. Consumers who have purchased Hanbit Enterprises, Inc. soybean sprouts in 1lb, 1.5lb, 10lb, and Natto plastic bags are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 831-422-8028 during office hours: Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434408.htm HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Colistimethate for Injections --------------------------------------------------------------- Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. announced the voluntary nationwide recall of ten (10) lots of Colistimethate for Injection, USP, 150 mg Single-Dose vial (NDC 23155-193-31) and three (3) lots of Rifampin for Injection, USP, 600 mg Single-Dose vial (NDC 23155- 340-31) manufactured by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and distributed by Heritage. Both products are sold in single vial mono-cartons in case packs of ten (10). Heritage has initiated this voluntary recall of Colistimethate for Injection, USP, 150 mg Single-Dose vial and Rifampin for Injection USP, 600 mg Single- Dose vial to the user level due to FDA observations pertaining to aseptic and GMP practices at the manufacturer's site potentially impacting product sterility. Intravenous administration of non-sterile injection products to a normally sterile site may result in a site-specific or systemic infection, which in turn may cause hospitalization, significant morbidity (permanent organ damage), or fatal outcome. To date, Heritage is not aware of any adverse patient events resulting from the use of the subject product lots. The lot numbers with expiry date being recalled are: Colistimethate for Injection Lot No. ------- VCOA002 VCOA003 VCOA004 VCOA005 VCOA006 VCOA007 VCOA008 VCOA009 VCOA010 VCOA011 Exp. Date 9/30/2014 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 1/31/2015 3/31/2015 9/30/2015 12/31/2015 2/29/2016 10/31/2016 10/31/2016 Rifampin for Injection Lot No. ------- VRIA002 VRIA003 VRIA004 Exp. Date 8/31/2016 9/30/2016 9/30/2016 The products were distributed to hospitals, wholesalers and distributors nationwide from December 2012 through January 2015 (Colistimethate) and from October 2014 through January 2015 (Rifampin). Colistimethate is indicated for the treatment of acute or chronic infections due to sensitive strains of certain gram- negative bacteria. Rifampin is indicated for the treatment of all forms of tuberculosis. Customers are being notified by fax, email, UPS, and/or certified mail that includes arrangements for return of all recalled product. Customers have been instructed to examine their inventory immediately and to quarantine, discontinue distribution of, and return the recalled lots of product. Customers who may have further distributed these products have been requested to identify their customers and notify them at once of this product recall. Any questions about returning unused product should be directed to the customer call center at (866) 901-1230 M-F 9am-5pm EST. Healthcare workers who have medical questions about Colistimethate for Injection, USP, 150 mg base/vial and Rifampin for Injection USP, 600 mg/vial may contact Heritage Medical Affairs (732-429- 1000, Ext. 101) M-F 9am-5pm EST. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Report Program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online:www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm Regular mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. About Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development, licensing, sales and marketing of prescription pharmaceutical products. CUSTOMER SUPPORT: Customer Service: Toll free: 1-800-505-9291 HERITAGE SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS: Dr. Pablo Davila (732) 429-1000, Ext. 101 HEWLETT-PACKARD: Seeks Dismissal of Autonomy Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report that Hewlett-Packard Co.'s retirement plan review committee urged a California federal judge Feb. 13 to toss a proposed class action claiming the company's disastrous $11 billion purchase of Autonomy Corp. harmed the plan's beneficiaries, arguing it had no duty to stop selling plan shares while investigating fraud allegations at Autonomy. The HP committee argued in its motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs' remaining claim, that the committee breached its fiduciary duty, must be dismissed because of U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's ruling in a securities class action over the same merger. In that case, Judge Breyer ruled that the defendants were right to take the time to investigate allegations of accounting fraud at Autonomy before notifying shareholders; that decision "constitutes law of the case and is controlling," the motion said. In a San Francisco courtroom Friday, Judge Breyer asked whether, if HP had told ERISA plan members at the time not to purchase more shares in the plan, it would also be required to disclose the reason behind that advice. The plaintiffs' attorney, Samuel Bonderoff of Zamansky LLC, argued that the committee could have told beneficiaries to stop buying shares in the ERISA plan and say that it's due to an investigation without explaining what the investigation was about. "That's a public notice, for all intents and purposes," Judge Breyer said, noting that the instructions would have gone out to thousands of HP employees. "It's going to be in the paper the next day." Mr. Bonderoff agreed but argued that the Ninth Circuit ruled in Steve Harris et al. v. Amgen et al that the defendants in that case were required to disclose information to ERISA plan participants. HP's attorney, Marc Wolinsky -- MWolinsky@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, disagreed with Mr. Bonderoff, saying if the company notifies participants about a stock freeze, it also has to explain why. "The notice not to buy shares would have inevitably become public," Mr. Wolinsky said. That, in turn, could have also harmed HP's market value, he said. He also asked how an obligation to disclose such an investigation could be created, given that the information that led to the investigation might turn out to be wrong. "The stock would arguably take a smaller hit than it would" if a nondisclosure early on led to a bigger disclosure later on, Judge Breyer said. "In this case, he didn't know how bad it was," Mr. Wolinsky said. "It was pretty bad," Judge Breyer said. Judge Breyer took the arguments under submission and didn't indicate how he would rule. In the suit, filed in 2012, the plaintiffs accuse HP's 401(k) plan committee and investment review committee of failing to look out for the plan participants' best interests by continuing to offer HP shares unrestricted despite knowing that the company was flailing financially -- in part due to the $8.8 billion it lost through Autonomy -- in violation of ERISA. The committees should have been aware that the company's value would plummet after "a series of strategic management blunders" that cost nearly $20 billion and eventually caused its stock price to fall 76 percent, the suit contends. By ignoring these warnings, the plaintiffs said, the plan committee breached its duties of prudence and loyalty to participants with respect to its continued offering of HP common stock held under the plan. The plan does not prohibit the committee from placing restrictions or other limitations on the offering of company stock if doing so is no longer financially prudent, the suit claims. The plaintiffs are represented by Samuel E. Bonderoff, Jacob H. Zamansky and Edward H. Glenn Jr. of Zamansky LLC and Betsy C. Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. HP is represented by Marc Wolinsky, George T. Conway and Vincent G. Levy of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz and Neil A. Goteiner and Thomas B. Mayhew -- tmayhew@fbm.com -- of Farella Braun & Martell LLP. The case is In re: HP ERISA Litigation, case number 3:12-cv-06199, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. HIGHVELD SYNDICATIONS: Investors Mull Class Actions --------------------------------------------------- Hanna Barry, writing for The Citizen, reports that fed-up investors are preparing up to nine class actions totaling billions of rands against Pickvest-promoted property syndication companies Highveld Syndications (HS) and individuals, representing an average of R250 000 per complainant, lawyers say. Seven thousand investors have now joined a class action group -- the Highveld Syndication Action Group (HSAG), administered by attorneys Theron & Partners -- on behalf of about 18 000 investors, mainly pensioners. The total invested was about R4.6 billion. Two High Court applications seek to have class actions certified for syndicated companies HS 15 to 18 and HS 19 to 22. An application for HS 19 to 22 was issued in October 2014. Theron & Partners expects an application to be issued in respect of HS 15 to 18 in the first half of this year. Some of the individual class actions certified will depend on the High Court's directive, says Marina Verdoes, of Theron & Partners. Among the respondents is Nic Georgiou, MD of Orthotouch, which bought properties in the HS companies but failed to pay interest in terms of a scheme of arrangement settled in 2011. A new scheme of arrangement was sanctioned in the South Gauteng High Court late last year, giving investors three alternatives to restructure the repayments. But Theron & Partners says it is probing the validity of the court order and will issue an application to have the order revised or rescinded. Helgard Hancke, an investor and coordinator of the HSAG, says investors are receiving less than 2% interest a month. "They [the 22 respondents] must . . . explain . . . what they've done with our money," he says. Mr. Hancke says an 84-year old widow invested R7 million, left by her late husband, but has had to sell her house and move in with her children. Others have committed suicide, he claims. Investors must pay upfront or in installments of R1 000 per claim (or HS syndication in which they are invested) to participate in the class action -- which is "only a fraction of the total costs of the ensuing High Court matters", Ms. Verdoes says. "This [R1 000] cost per claim has been instituted in order to be reasonable to all investors and also to cover the costs of more than one court case. For example, an investor in HS 15, 17 and 19 will be a claimant in three High Court Cases," Ms. Verdoes explains. "All surplus funds will be returned to investors at the end of the matter," he says. HOME LOAN: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. on Feb. 13 disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the period from February 28, 2012 through January 22, 2015. HLSS acquires mortgage servicing assets. The Company invests primarily in sub-prime and Alt-A mortgage servicing rights and associated servicing advances, and hires residential loan servicers to service the pools of mortgage loans underlying the mortgage servicing rights. HLSS launched its operations in March 2012 with the proceeds from an initial public offering and a concurrent private placement to acquire a $15.2 billion mortgage servicing assets portfolio from Ocwen Financial Corporation. The private placement was facilitated by the Company's founder and former Chairman Defendant William C. Erbey, who until recently was also the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Ocwen. The existence of HLSS is dependent on its relationship with Ocwen. Ocwen is a financial services company engaged in the servicing and origination of mortgage loans, including standard residential and commercial servicing, special servicing, and asset management services. Ocwen owns a large loan portfolio consisting of conventional, government insured, and non-agency loans, including a large number of subprime loans. The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) that due to HLSS's dependency on Ocwen, any wrongful conduct on the part of Ocwen would directly affect HLSS; (ii) material information regarding illegal practices and various compliance failures in Ocwen's servicing business; (iii) material information regarding improper conflicted transactions with Ocwen; (iv) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (v) that Ocwen was under investigation for violating applicable federal and state regulations and laws, including among other things, the New York Department of Financial Services' and the state of California's investigation of Ocwen; (vi) the Company was in breach of provisions of its notes held by BlueMountain Capital Management, LLC; (vii) the Company faced material risks if it defaults on its notes, and (viii) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com If you purchased HLSS stock between February 28, 2012 and January 22, 2015, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests. If you purchased HLSS common stock during the Class Period of February 28, 2012 through January 22, 2015, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than March 30, 2015. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. HORIZON LINES: Settles Class Actions Over Planned Sale ------------------------------------------------------ Star-Adviser reports that three lawsuits challenging the planned sale of ocean cargo transportation firm Horizon Lines to competitors Matson Inc. and The Pasha Group have led to a settlement agreement that won't affect the deal's $598 million purchase price. North Carolina-based Horizon announced the tentative settlement on Feb. 13, and said it is subject to court approval. One significant change to the planned sale under the settlement agreement is how much Matson would receive under certain circumstances if the deal falls apart. This so-called termination fee will be cut to $9.5 million from $17.2 million. Shareholders of Horizon stock are slated to vote on the sale Feb. 25. The deal, announced in November, involves Pasha acquiring Horizon's Hawaii business $141.5 million while Matson acquires Horizon's operations in Alaska for $456.1 million. Matson is the largest ocean cargo carrier serving Hawaii. Three class-action lawsuits filed in Delaware sought to block the sale, alleging that the purchase price was insufficient, that there was misleading or missing information about the deal, and other things. Horizon said its board regarded the lawsuits, which were consolidated into one case, as having no merit. A settlement, the company said, eliminates risks, costs and other burdens of litigation. HUMMINGBIRD WHOLESALE: Recalls Organic Chocolate Hazelnut Butter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hummingbird Wholesale in Eugene Oregon is recalling 110 jars of Hummingbird Brand Organic Chocolate Hazelnut Butter that may contain undeclared milk. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk products run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recalled product sold to retail outlets in California, Oregon, and Washington and directly to consumers in Oregon in 1 pound (454 gram) glass jars that show lot number of 15023 on a white sticker on the jar between the dates of 1/27/15 and 2/19/15. HW Item # Lot # UPC Code --------- ----- -------- N270 15023 6-96859-11035-1 The recall was initiated after it was discovered that a supplier had changed the ingredients without notice to include milk in the 65% dark chocolate used to make the Organic Chocolate Hazelnut Butter. The label does not show milk as an ingredient. Only lot # 15023 was made with the affected chocolate. Consumers who purchased this product are welcome to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund, or to contact Hummingbird at 541-686-0921 ext. 105 from 8am to 4pm PST Monday through Friday. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Hummingbird Wholesale has taken immediate action to recall the affected Organic Chocolate Hazelnut Butter in order to ensure the safety of its consumers. Hummingbird Wholesale is dedicated to providing the highest quality organic and raw products, and the safety of our customers is our number one priority. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435155.htm IDEAL MEDICAL: Removes "Riley" Suit to Florida District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Riley v. Ideal Medical Center Inc., et al., Case No. 2014-30694-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami- Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20654-JLK to the proceeding. Plaintiff Ginette Jean Riley seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages pursuant to federal and state statutory causes of action as well as state common law. Specifically, the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges six causes of action, including violations of the Florida Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. Brody Max Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: James Jay Thornton, Esq. GRAYROBINSON, P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1850 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 761-8111 Facsimile: (954) 761-8112 E-mail: jay.thornton@gray-robinson.com - and - Sarah Pleasant Lohn Reiner, Esq. GRAYROBINSON, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 244-5650 Facsimile: (407) 244-5690 E-mail: sarah.reiner@gray-robinson.com IT'S JUST LUNCH: Faces Class Action Over Membership Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------- Stacia Naquin, writing for 12 News, reports that complaints about matchmaking service It's Just Lunch have taken on a new life, with a huge class-action lawsuit. "It's Just Lunch" (IJL) claims to be old-style matchmaking for busy professionals. But it'll cost you, depending on what kind of membership you sign up for. A 12-month membership can cost $2,500 and includes 10 dates. "I thought 'Boy does this come with a bar of gold or something?'" said Brigit, a Goodyear resident who signed up with It's Just Lunch in 2014 and asked that her last name not be used for this story. "But really what I thought was paying that kind of money, you're probably getting what you're paying for here." Nine months later, she changed her tune. After only two dates during that time, Brigit said she didn't feel like the company was helping her. In fact, she says It's Just Lunch misrepresented her with the dates she did have. "They're told I look different," she said. "Different height. Different marriage and child status. I don't have any children. One of them was told that I had children. Both were told I was a physician. I'm an ethicist actually. So none of the basic information was even correct." Since she wasn't getting what she paid for, Brigit asked for a refund. The company repeatedly said no, she says. Call 12 has fielded a series of complaints over the years about It's Just Lunch, with customers making similar statements about their experiences. Call 12 volunteers have always been able to help customers get refunds. But now the complaints have taken on a new life, with a huge class-action lawsuit. "There are tens of thousands of IJL customers from all over the United States who are in the class," said Philip Menchaca, legal analyst for Balestriere Fariello, the company leading the case. "Our goal for the suit is to achieve some justice for those that did not receive the service they signed up for." It's Just Lunch maintains that it has a high rate of success in matching couples. A spokesperson says that success could be defined differently by each of its clients, but denied misrepresenting anyone. "We would never misrepresent our clients," said Julie Lopez, It's Just Lunch spokesperson. "It wouldn't benefit them or our business in any way." When asked about the lawsuit, the company had no comment. But Ms. Lopez did have this to say about Brigit. "The process doesn't seem to be working for this particular client," said Ms. Lopez. "So, we've issued her a pro-rated refund for her membership." Brigit says the company told her it would be an $1,800 refund, but when the check arrived, it was only for $1,550. In the meantime, she's still looking for love and plans to spend Valentine's Day with her family. But she still wants to warn other potential clients of the company. "For $2,500 that you will never see and dates that will probably make you cringe or never work out, it's just best not to use this company," she said. If you have a problem with a business, contact Call 12 for Action. KBR: Class Action Over "Burn Pits" Heads Back to Maryland --------------------------------------------------------- Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, writing for Fox News, reports that U.S. troops who risked their lives battling insurgents in Afghanistan for years faced another unseen enemy at bases across the country: toxic fumes from open-air "burn pits" that were used long after orders to phase them out. A scathing new watchdog report details the extent of the "indefensible" practice. The report says the U.S. military even spent millions on incinerators as a trash-burning alternative, yet several of them did not work or were never turned on, wasting $20 million and leaving troops to breathe pollution from the burn pits instead. "Given the fact that [the Department of Defense] has been aware for many years of the significant health risks associated with open-air burn pits, it is indefensible that U.S. military personnel, who are already at risk of serious injury and death when fighting the enemy, were put at further risk from the potentially harmful emissions from the use of open-air burn pits," John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction (SIGAR), said in his findings. The report coincides with a separate class-action lawsuit -- by hundreds of veterans who say they were sickened by exposure to burn pits over the course of the 13-year war -- that is moving closer to a trial. That suit, lodged against private contractors KBR and its former parent company Halliburton Co., is headed back to U.S. District Court in Maryland after the U.S. Supreme Court declined in January to take up the defendants' appeal for a dismissal. KBR, which had a government contract to provide waste management on overseas bases, says it was not operating in Afghanistan during the period covered in the SIGAR investigation, and the company is not mentioned in the report. But the report's strong words about the health hazards could bolster the arguments made by servicemembers who say their proximity to the burn pits resulted in protracted medical issues -- including asthma, acute respiratory illness, immunity disorders and even cancer. "[The] IG report confirms what we have alleged in the lawsuit," said Susan Burke, the lead attorney representing the veterans. Neither the government nor KBR has acknowledged a link between the burn-pit emissions and long-term illness. DOD and Veterans Affairs (VA) officials contend that studies are ongoing. The VA recently opened an Airborne Hazards and Open Pit Registry for veterans to share their symptoms and experiences in hopes of learning more. However, on its website the VA states, "at this time, research does not show evidence of long-term health problems." According to Mr. Sopko, the pits burned a peak of 410 tons of solid waste a day throughout the war -- everything from vehicle parts, plastics and medical waste to prohibited hazardous materials like batteries and tires. The toxic brew created a black plume of smoke that lingered in the air over barracks and other common areas, soldiers have long reported. After returning veterans came to members of Congress complaining of health issues, new guidelines were passed in 2009 to phase out the burn pits on installations with more than 100 people starting in 2011. Incinerators were supposed to be moved in as a clean alternative. It didn't work out that way. According to the report, "[U.S. Central Command] officials told us that no U.S. installation in Afghanistan has ever been in compliance," and SIGAR investigators personally witnessed the continued use of pits in the field through 2013. The investigation was conducted from October 2012 to June 2014, at four out of the nine U.S. bases where incinerators were reportedly installed after 2010. SIGAR found that out of the $81.9 million taxpayers spent on 23 incinerators, $20.1 million was wasted because at least eight of them on those four sites were never used. The report blames contractors hired by the military for faulty or incomplete installation of the incinerators. It also points a finger at DOD for paying contractors despite the fact incinerators were never turned on, or were left with deficiencies that prevented them from fully operating. SIGAR found that at places like Camp Leatherneck, which housed an average of 20,000 people at any one time, "open-air burn pit operations continued on the base until October 2013, an additional 16 months" after four incinerators had been installed there. Meanwhile, hundreds of veterans have joined the class-action lawsuit against KBR and Halliburton. Since 2001, KBR has held a stake in the multi-billion dollar contract with the Pentagon in both Afghanistan and Iraq to provide, in part, waste management and other services on U.S. bases. The Texas-based company argues the suit should be dismissed because since the company was working on behalf of the U.S. military, which cannot be sued in U.S. district courts for command decisions in wartime, KBR is also exempt from such litigation. KIRSCH MUSHROOM: Recalls Chilean Mushrooms Due to Sulfites ---------------------------------------------------------- Kirsch Mushroom Co. Inc. of 751 Drake Street Bronx NY, is recalling its Chilean Mushrooms that were purchased from Nov 1st2014 to Dec 20th 2014 because they contained undeclared sulfites. Consumers who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. These Chilean mushrooms were sold to Sloan super market in Buffalo NY. Sloan has made label corrections of that may contain sulfites. Walk in customers have also purchased this batch of mushrooms from Nov 1st 2014 to Dec 20th 2014. No illness or allergic reactions involving this product have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by the New York State Department of Agriculture and markets food inspectors and subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in these Chilean mushrooms. There was no label on these mushrooms stating that they contained sulfites. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. Analysis of these "Chilean Mushrooms" revealed a sulfite level in excess of 10 milligrams per serving. Consumers who have purchased these Chilean Mushrooms between Nov 1st 2014 and Dec 20th 2014 are urged to return them to Kirsch Mushroom Co. Inc. for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Kirsch Mushroom Co. Inc. at 718-991-4977. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435011.htm LANNETT COMPANY: "Schaefer" Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that David Schaefer, as an alleged class representative, filed on August 27, 2014, a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (14-cv-05008) against the Company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws arising out of statements about the Company made in its securities filings during the period of September 10, 2013 through July 16, 2014. The complaint alleges that the statements were false and misleading because the defendants allegedly knew at the time the statements were made that the Company was in violation of Connecticut antitrust laws relating to its sale of digoxin. Mr. Schaefer's complaint was voluntarily dismissed in September 2014. LAROSA'S CREAMY: Recalls Garlic Dressing Due to Milk & Eggs ----------------------------------------------------------- The T. Marzetti Co of Columbus, OH is voluntarily recalling 627 cases of LaRosa's Creamy Garlic Dressing in 1.5 oz packets because the product contains milk and egg allergens that are not declared on the packet label. The dressing was manufactured correctly and has always contained milk and egg; however there was an error in labeling. People who have an allergy to milk and eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. LaRosa's Creamy Garlic Dressing in packets was distributed primarily in the greater Cincinnati, OH area with limited distribution Columbus, OH, Northern KY, and Southeast Indiana. Product was distributed exclusively through LaRosa's Pizzeria Restaurants. The product is labeled LaRosa's Pizzeria Creamy Garlic Dressing in a single serve 1.5oz packet with the UPC code 70200 80109. Restaurant Item UPC Number on Packet Use By Date --------- Description ------------------- ----------- ----------- LaRosa's Creamy Garlic 70200 80109 UB051615C 1.5 oz packet LaRosa's Creamy Garlic 70200 80109 UB052915C 1.5 oz packet This recall was initiated after incorrect packaging was discovered at a LaRosa's Restaurant. No illnesses have been reported to date. The product in question has been removed from the restaurants. Consumers with questions may contact the T. Marzetti Co at: 1-800-999-1835. Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5pm. EST Saturday/Sunday 11:00am - 11:00pm EST Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434475.htm LIFELINE INC: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Care ----------------------------------------------------- Doug Donovan, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a guardian for a disabled foster child who was injured at a troubled group home last year has sued the state contractor that ran the facility and the Maryland government agencies responsible for supervising its care. The suit alleges that LifeLine Inc. and several state agencies were negligent in allowing 19-year-old David Davis to develop a deep bedsore in May. Davis, who is quadriplegic, contracted an infection that spread to his bones, the suit said. LifeLine officials did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for the state health department, which is named as a defendant along with the Department of Human Resources, said the agency "has no obligation to respond" because the suit was filed in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of others who were under LifeLine's care -- including 10-year-old Damaud Martin, who died at the same Laurel-area home on July 2, and three disabled adults who died at a separate facility that state regulators closed in 2011. Mr. Davis' injury and three-week hospitalization was caused by LifeLine's inadequate staffing, which allowed the bedsore to develop and led to "the rotting of the flesh," states the lawsuit filed by attorney Michael Pisanchyn of Scranton, Pa. Davis was not able to "call out for help or contact anyone" about his injury because of his disabilities, the suit says. The lawsuit was not unexpected. In August, Mr. Pisanchyn notified the Maryland treasurer's office that he would seek monetary damages on behalf of Damaud and Davis, a necessary step before filing suit. Maribeth Donohue, who has served as Davis' guardian for health and education matters and is named as a plaintiff with the teen, said, "David still has a drain for his wound and he can't be in a wheelchair for more than four hours." That has limited how long he can attend school, she said. A Baltimore Sun investigation found that the state had awarded at least $18 million in contracts since 2010 to LifeLine despite years of problems: deficiencies in medical care, a founder imprisoned for arson, unpaid taxes, a bankruptcy filing, and police reports of abuse and neglect unknown to regulators. Regulators threatened to close LifeLine after investigating the complaint about Davis in May, but the company's chief executive responded by saying LifeLine was shutting down its children's program because of inadequate state funding. Damaud died before the last of the children could be moved from LifeLine on July 3. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages to cover medical expenses and punitive damages for Mr. Davis' pain and suffering. It also asks the state to change its oversight of group homes. LIONS GATE: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that With word that $7.5 million is of "economic insignificance" and some pride of having bested corporate raider Carl Icahn, Lionsgate on Feb. 12 moved to dismiss a shareholder class-action lawsuit for failing to disclose a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. In 2010, Mr. Icahn made a takeover bid for Lionsgate, which caused the studio behind movies like The Hunger Games and television shows like Mad Men to issue new shares with the effect of diluting Icahn's stake. Lionsgate was then successful at beating back Icahn's lawsuit over the matter in British Columbia, and the widely-publicized battle ended. But in March 2014, Lionsgate came to a $7.5 million settlement with the SEC over some of the public disclosures related to the transactions made in the Icahn takeover fight. As part of the deal, Lionsgate admitted wrongdoing. Four months later, some investors brought a securities claim alleging Lionsgate intentionally failed to tell its shareholders about the SEC investigation. This time, Lionsgate says it has no such obligation to speak up. Lionsgate has now filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. "No court has ever held that any statute or regulation imposes an affirmative duty to disclose a government investigation before the agency has even decided to institute proceedings," says Lionsgate's memorandum. "To the contrary: this Court has held that the SEC rules do not require disclosure of government investigations. This rule recognizes the obvious fact that agency staff conducting an investigation lack the authority to bring any charges. Staff investigations, by their very nature, are preliminary; they often result in no charges being brought at all. A rule that required premature disclosure of a staff investigation would essentially require a company to declare itself guilty . . ." Lionsgate also shrugs its shoulders at the $7.5 million, doubting the amount is a material amount under settled law and SEC regulations and saying it "represented a fraction of a percent of Lions Gate's total assets at the time -- again, 0.27 percent, to be precise." There might have been a time when Lionsgate knew of the investigation and didn't know exactly how much it would be paying. That's not discussed in the bid to dismiss the shareholder suit. But Lionsgate does say that investors already knew about the payment before the settlement was even announced because when the company reported $18.7 million in general and administrative expensive for the prior quarter before the announcement, it did so by noting it "included an accrual related to an anticipated settlement of a legal matter that goes back several years." Did investors connect the dots that this related to Mr. Icahn? Who knows, but Lionsgate also thinks that there's good reason why investors should move on given history. About the Icahn takeover bid, Lionsgate's memo states, "The market ultimately proved the board right. For example, in February 2010, Icahn launched a tender offer at $6.00 per share; in March 2014, the company's shares were trading above $30.00." The stock went up to $31.73 on the day it announced an increase in general and administrative expenses, it says. "Nor was there a significant impact on the stock price when the SEC settlement was disclosed," it adds. "On March 12, 2014, the day before Lions Gate announced the SEC settlement, Lions Gate's stock price closed at $33.26 per share. On March 13, 2014, Lions Gate's stock closed at $32.20 per share, id. -- a drop of only three percent, well within the normal ups and downs of the stock." Lionsgate admits that the stock dropped down to $30.33 a few days later -- implying that the plaintiffs are seizing on this number for no good reason but to try to collect as much damages that they can. LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Trial Ct. Ruling in Holmes Case Party Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- In DEBORAH HOLMES, v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, NO. 14-CA-598, the Plaintiff seeks review of a trial court's judgment granting defendant's exceptions of prescription and lis pendens, and dismissing plaintiff's first supplemental and amending petition for damages. Ms. Holmes asserts that she was the owner of immovable property located at 1849 Cinclair Loop in St. John the Baptist Parish, when Hurricane Katrina struck in August of 2005. Ms. Holmes contends that she suffered damage to this property as a result of the hurricane and that her damages were covered under her homeowner's insurance policy issued by defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ("Citizens"). On September 19, 2011, Ms. Holmes filed a petition for damages against Citizens for claims arising out of Citizens' handling of her property damage claims. On October 28, 2011, Citizens filed an exception of prescription, asserting that Ms. Holmes' claims were not timely filed and seeking dismissal of her lawsuit. After a hearing on December 20, 2011, the trial court granted Citizens' exception of prescription. Ms. Holmes appealed the trial court's judgment and, on appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment but remanded to allow Ms. Holmes the opportunity to amend or supplement her petition. On remand, Ms. Holmes filed a first supplemental and amending petition for damages, alleging that she is a putative member of these class actions: 1) Orrill v. AIG, Inc., et al., No. 2005-11720, filed on October 2, 2005 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 2) Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan Property Insurance Corporation, No. 625-567, filed on November 18, 2005 in the 24th Judicial District Court; 3) Press v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 2006-5530, filed on June 27, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 4) Christenberry v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., No. 2006-0819, filed August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 5) Buxton v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 2006-08341, filed on August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 6) Chalona v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 107-125, filed on August 25, 2006 in the 34th Judicial District Court; 7) State, et al. v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 2007-8970, filed on August 23, 2007 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, commonly referred to as the "Road Home" litigation. In her supplemental and amended petition, Ms. Holmes alleges that she has not opted out of these class action suits and that prescription is suspended as to her claims that are covered under these class actions, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 596(A). In response, Citizens filed exceptions of lis pendens, res judicata, and prescription. A hearing on the exceptions of lis pendens and prescription was held on December 5, 2013. On January 15, 2014, the trial court rendered a judgment granting Citizens' exception of prescription as to all claims alleged in Ms. Holmes' petition that are not covered by the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry class actions. The trial court also granted Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Ms. Holmes' claims that are included in the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry class actions. The trial court found that because Ms. Holmes is a putative class member of these remaining class actions and has not opted of out the classes, lis pendens applies, as judgments in these class actions would have res judicata effect on Ms. Holmes' individual lawsuit if it was allowed to proceed. Ms. Holmes appealed. Accordingly, Judge Hans J. Liljeberg of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, reversed the trial court's ruling granting Citizens' exception of prescription as to Ms. Holmes' Road Home and Buxton claims, but affirmed the trial court's ruling granting the exception of prescription as to Ms. Holmes' Chalona claims. The Appeals Court further affirmed the trial court judgment granting Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Ms. Holmes' Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry claims. "This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," Judge Liljeberg wrote on his February 25, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/jXYSoIfrom Leagle.com. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Joseph M. Bruno, Esq. Melissa A. Debarbieris, Esq. Attorneys At Law 855 Baronne Street, 2nd Floor New Orleans, LA 70113, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Charles M. Hughes, Jr., Esq. Rachael P. Catalanotto, Esq. Ryan G. Davis, Esq. Attorneys At Law 2250 7th Street Mandeville, LA 70471 - and - John W. Waters, Jr., Esq. Kristin Mosely Jones, Esq. Attorneys At Law 1010 Common Street, Suite 2200 New Orleans, LA 70112 LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Williams Case Court Ruling Partly Reversed -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Hans J. Liljeberg of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court ruling in LIONEL WILLIAMS, v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, NO. 14-CA-597. The Plaintiff sought review of the trial court's judgment granting defendant's exceptions of prescription and lis pendens, and dismissing plaintiff's first supplemental and amending petition for damages. Mr. Williams was the owner of immovable property located at 194 West 19th St. in Reserve, Louisiana, when Hurricane Katrina struck in August of 2005. Mr. Williams contended that he suffered damage to this property as a result of the hurricane and that his damages were covered under his homeowner's insurance policy issued by defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. On September 20, 2011, Mr. Williams filed a petition for damages against Citizens for claims arising out of Citizens' handling of his property damage claims. On October 24, 2011, Citizens filed an exception of prescription, asserting that Mr. Williams' claims were not timely filed and seeking dismissal of his lawsuit. After a hearing on December 20, 2011, the trial court granted Citizens' exception of prescription. Mr. Williams appealed the trial court's judgment and, on appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment but remanded to allow Mr. Williams the opportunity to amend or supplement his petition. On remand, Mr. Williams filed a first supplemental and amending petition for damages, alleging that he is a putative member of these class actions: 1) Orrill v. AIG, Inc., et al., No. 2005-11720, filed on October 2, 2005 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 2) Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan Property Insurance Corporation, No. 625-567, filed on November 18, 2005 in the 24th Judicial District Court; 3) Press v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 2006-5530, filed on June 27, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 4) Christenberry v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., No. 2006-0819, filed August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 5) Buxton v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 2006-08341, filed on August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 6) Chalona v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 107-125, filed on August 25, 2006 in the 34th Judicial District Court; 7) State, et al. v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 2007-8970, filed on August 23, 2007 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, commonly referred to as the "Road Home" litigation. In his supplemental and amending petition, Mr. Williams alleged that he has not opted out of these class action suits and that prescription is suspended as to his claims that are covered under these class actions, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 596(A). In response, Citizens filed exceptions of lis pendens, res judicata, and prescription. A hearing on the exceptions of lis pendens and prescription was held on December 5, 2013.3 On January 15, 2014, the trial court rendered a judgment granting Citizens' exception of prescription as to all claims alleged in Mr. Williams' petition that are not covered by the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry class actions. The trial court also granted Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Mr. Williams' claims that are included in the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry class actions. The trial court found that because Mr. Williams is a putative class member of these remaining class actions and has not opted out of the classes, lis pendens applies, as judgments in these class actions would have res judicata effect on Mr. Williams' individual lawsuit if it was allowed to proceed. Mr. Williams appealed. In its February 25, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/n1Ccpkfrom Leagle.com, Judge Liljeberg reverses the trial court's ruling granting Citizens' exception of prescription as to Mr. Williams' Road Home and Buxton claims, but affirmed the trial court's ruling granting the exception of prescription as to Mr. Williams' Chalona claims. We further affirm the trial court judgment granting Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Mr. Williams' Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry claims. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Joseph M. Bruno, Esq. Melissa A. Debarbieris, Esq. Attorneys At Law 855 Baronne Street, 2nd Floor New Orleans, LA 70113, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Charles M. Hughes, Jr., Esq. Rachael P. Catalanotto, Esq. Ryan G. Davis, Esq. Attorneys At Law 2250 7th Street Mandeville, LA 70471 - and - John W. Waters, Jr., Esq. Kristin Mosely Jones, Esq. Attorneys At Law 1010 Common Street, Suite 2200 New Orleans, LA 70112 LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Holmes Case Remanded to Trial Court ------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit remanded the case captioned DEBORAH HOLMES, v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, NO. 14-CA-599 to the trial court for further proceedings. The Plaintiff sought a review of the trial court's judgment granting defendant's exceptions of prescription and lis pendens, and dismissing plaintiff's first supplemental and amending petition for damages. Ms. Holmes asserts that she was the owner of immovable property located at 1730 Creole Street in St. John the Baptist Parish, when Hurricane Katrina struck in August of 2005. Ms. Holmes contends that she suffered damage to this property as a result of the hurricane and that her damages were covered under her homeowner's insurance policy issued by defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ("Citizens"). On September 19, 2011, Ms. Holmes filed a petition for damages against Citizens for claims arising out of Citizens' handling of her property damage claims. On October 28, 2011, Citizens filed an exception of prescription, asserting that Ms. Holmes' claims were not timely filed and seeking dismissal of her lawsuit. After a hearing on December 20, 2011, the trial court granted Citizens' exception of prescription. Ms. Holmes appealed the trial court's judgment and, on appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment but remanded to allow Ms. Holmes the opportunity to amend or supplement her petition. On remand, Ms. Holmes filed a first supplemental and amending petition for damages, alleging that she is a putative member of these class actions: 1) Orrill v. AIG, Inc., et al., No. 2005-11720, filed on October 2, 2005 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 2) Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan Property Insurance Corporation, No. 625-567, filed on November 18, 2005 in the 24th Judicial District Court; 3) Press v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 2006-5530, filed on June 27, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 4) Christenberry v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., No. 2006-0819, filed August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 5) Buxton v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 2006-08341, filed on August 25, 2006 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; 6) Chalona v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., No. 107-125, filed on August 25, 2006 in the 34th Judicial District Court; 7) State, et al. v. AAA Insurance, et al., No. 2007-8970, filed on August 23, 2007 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, commonly referred to as the "Road Home" litigation. In her supplemental and amending petition, Ms. Holmes alleged that she has not opted out of these class action suits and that prescription is suspended as to her claims that are covered under these class actions, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 596(A). In response, Citizens filed exceptions of lis pendens, res judicata, and prescription. A hearing on the exceptions of lis pendens and prescription was held on December 5, 2013.3 On January 15, 2014, the trial court rendered a judgment granting Citizens' exception of prescription as to all claims alleged in Ms. Holmes' petition that are not covered by the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry class actions. The trial court also granted Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Ms. Holmes' claims that are included in the Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry class actions. The trial court found that because Ms. Holmes is a putative class member of these remaining class actions and has not opted out of the classes, lis pendens applies, as judgments in these class actions would have res judicata effect on Ms. Holmes' individual lawsuit if it was allowed to proceed. Ms. Holmes appealed. Judge Hans J. Liljeberg, in a February 25, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ZT4qEdfrom Leagle.com, reversed the trial court's ruling granting Citizens' exception of prescription as to Ms. Holmes' Road Home and Buxton claims, but affirmed the trial court's ruling granting the exception of prescription as to Ms. Holmes' Chalona claims. The Court further affirmed the trial court judgment granting Citizens' exception of lis pendens as to Ms. Holmes' Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry claims. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Appeals Court opinion. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Joseph M. Bruno, Esq. Melissa A. Debarbieris, Esq. Attorneys At Law 855 Baronne Street, 2nd Floor New Orleans, LA 70113, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Charles M. Hughes, Jr., Esq. Rachael P. Catalanotto, Esq. Ryan G. Davis, Esq. Attorneys At Law 2250 7th Street Mandeville, LA 70471 - and - John W. Waters, Jr., Esq. Kristin Mosely Jones, Esq. Attorneys At Law 1010 Common Street, Suite 2200 New Orleans, LA 70112 Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Robert A. Chaisson, and Hans J. Liljeberg. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: "Thomas" Case Pending in ND California --------------------------------------------------------------- MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-CV-1160, is pending in the Northern District of California. On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's current and now-former officers on behalf of shareholders who purchased or acquired the Company's securities between February 1, 2012 and March 11, 2014. On September 30, 2014, an amended complaint was filed against the Company, certain current and now-former officers of the Company, certain members of the Company's Board of Directors, and a shareholder of the Company, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-CV-1160, is pending in the Northern District of California. The Court has granted the plaintiffs thirty days from the date the 2013 Form 10-K is filed with the SEC to file and serve a further amended complaint. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters. MAJOR LEAGUE: Class Action Trial Date Set for February 2017 ----------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Jordan, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that a federal court in San Francisco was scheduled to hold a hearing on Feb. 13 on whether to grant a request by Major League Baseball to move a class-action lawsuit from California to Florida. The lawsuit, filed a year ago on behalf of former minor-league players, claims that MLB routinely pays minor leaguers less than minimum wage and ignores overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Among the plaintiffs is former Sea Dogs infielder Ryan Khoury, who played last summer for the independent Wichita Wingnuts, a team in the American Association not affiliated with any major league franchise. Portland's executive vice president/general manager, Geoff Iacuessa, said the team has no official position on the lawsuit. "We, like everybody in baseball, are curiously watching," he said. "Depending on which way it goes, it certainly will have an impact on Minor League Baseball and the franchises." At baseball's recent winter meetings in San Diego in early December, Stan Brand, Minor League Baseball's vice president who represents the industry on Capitol Hill, delivered an impassioned speech warning that the lawsuit threatens the existence of the minors, and that MiLB plans to help lobby Congress to change a provision of the FLSA. In a phone interview from his office in Washington, D.C., Mr. Brand said minor league ballplayers should be viewed as "trainees or seasonal employees, or some variety of what is already exempted in the law." Current law lists 35 occupations -- including babysitters and newspaper delivery drivers -- not required to receive minimum wage or overtime pay. "This isn't a career for all these guys, it's a tryout, it's an opportunity," Mr. Brand said. "It's not like going on the shop floor and working in a factory for 30 years. The vast majority of players will not go on a (major league) 40-man roster." Garrett Broshuis, a former pitcher in the San Francisco Giants system who spent four of his six professional seasons in the Eastern League and reached as high as Triple A, is the lawyer spearheading the suit. He said Mr. Brand's comments are off base and that players must train year-round in order to move up the ladder of pro baseball. Surely, he said, in an industry that generates $9 billion per year, there is enough money for minor leaguers to eat properly, afford a reasonable rent and not be forced into debt in order to follow their dream. "The major league teams . . . pay the salaries of the minor league players and the minor league coaches," Mr. Broshuis said from his office in St. Louis. "Minor league teams, their main responsibility is operating the stadium. It's really kind of an absurd position for Minor League Baseball to take." The milb.com website says players in their first pro season make a maximum salary of $1,100 per month. That salary, Mr. Broshuis said, does not include spring training and only runs from Opening Day until the end of the season, making it worth $5,500 annually. The federal poverty level for a single person is $11,670, or twice as much. The New York Mets recently made news when it emerged that minor leaguers were being charged -- by a personal trainer affiliated with the team -- to work out at the team's facility in Port St. Lucie, Florida, in advance of spring training. Mr. Broshuis called such an arrangement "the complete opposite of what should be happening. When training is part of your job, your employer should be paying you for it." With a trial date set for February 2017, any resolution is a long way off. Major League Baseball filed a 78-page response denying all charges. Mr. Broshuis said he is awaiting documents requested as part of the discovery phase. Since 1976, the lawsuit contends, salaries for major leaguers have jumped 2,500 percent and inflation is up more than 400 percent. Over the same period, minor league pay is up only 75 percent. Meanwhile, franchise values continue to rise. Last summer, a Single-A franchise in Dayton, Ohio, sold for a reported $40 million and a Double-A franchise in Frisco, Texas, for $32 million. "Both of those sales are really top-end franchises," said Mr. Iacuessa, citing Dayton's sellout streak of more than 1,000 consecutive games. "A team like the Portland Sea Dogs," Mr. Broshuis said, "which is close to your MLB affiliate (the Boston Red Sox) and draws well, it's worth a lot more today than it was 15 years ago." Mr. Broshuis said his ultimate goal is to establish a union for minor league baseball players -- which minor league hockey players have accomplished. Minimum salary in the American Hockey League, which includes the Portland Pirates, is $42,375. "It will certainly be a tough effort," Mr. Broshuis said. "I've had guys reach out to me, and hopefully success in this lawsuit will embolden guys and help them realize there is a benefit to acting collectively." MAJOR LEAGUE: Plaintiffs Must Justify Calif. Venue in Wage Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner, Kat Greene and Tess Hofmann, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on Feb. 13 stopped short of tossing minor league baseball players' proposed minimum-wage class action against Major League Baseball but ordered them to show the case's ties to California, club by club and plaintiff by plaintiff, given that most minor league clubs are in Florida. A number of the defendant teams moved to dismiss the case in November, arguing that they do not engage in "continuous and systematic" business activities in California and only travel to the state when their Major League teams play against California teams. Although U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on Feb. 13 said he had serious doubts about California's jurisdiction over the case, he gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file statements elaborating on the issue. "I'll give the plaintiffs a brief period to propose new class members," Judge Spero said. "You'll have to go club by club and named plaintiff by named plaintiff . . . and put in how the claims of a named plaintiff arise out of or relate to actions in California." Elise Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, representing several of the defendant teams, argued that to establish a California venue, they need a named plaintiff for each of the teams. At the moment they only have one such plaintiff, Kris Watts, who said he signed a contract in California to work as a minor league player for the Pittsburgh Pirates, Bloom said. Ms. Bloom's clients, which include the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees, also filed a motion to transfer the suit. On Feb. 13, she argued that Florida might have been the better venue. "It's not just the presence of the minor league office in Florida," Mr. Bloom argued. "Major League Baseball contracts with the minor leagues, and that agreement gives life to the minor leagues." Judge Spero pointed out that there's no allegation in the complaint regarding breach of that agreement. "What's it got to do with the agreement? The MLB gives life to the minor leagues . By that logic, California has jurisdiction," he said. The plaintiffs' attorney, Bruce Simon of Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP, argued that the players' contracts are with the MLB clubs, not with the minor league clubs, and that the Florida clubs "have nothing to do with what this case is about. MLB is the entity that gives rise to everything." Mr. Simon added that the majority of the training and recruiting of minor league players takes place in California. Garrett Broshuis -- gbroshuis@koreintillery.com -- of Korein Tillery LLC, a former baseball player, also representing the plaintiffs, argued that there are more putative class members in California, including more than 70 who live in the state during the off- season. However, Judge Spero pointed out that unless a class is certified, "it's an individual action. How can I judge the jurisdictional question based on conduct with respect to nonparties?" Aaron Senne, Oliver Odle and Michael Liberto filed their putative class action a year ago, claiming that minor league players in the lowest ranks of the organization are paid less than minimum wage, uncompensated for overtime and sometimes paid nothing at all for required work. They claim that players are paid as little as $1,100 per month at the lowest ranks and $2,150 a month at the highest ranks of the minor leagues. For this pay, players work 50 hours or more each week, meaning they receive less than minimum wage, the suit said. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of players who they say have been cheated out of years of pay and opportunity. On Feb. 12, the players struck back against the league's bid to have the case tied with another class action by minor leaguers accusing the league of antitrust violations, saying the cases assert entirely different claims. The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Bruce L. Simon, Thomas K. Boardman and Bobby Pouya of Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP and Stephen M. Tillery, Garrett R. Broshuis, Giuseppe S. Giardina and George A. Zelcs of Korein Tillery LLC. The defendants are represented by Laura Reathaford, Elise M. Bloom, Howard L. Ganz, Neil H. Abramson and Adam M. Lupion -- alupion@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP and by Rifkin, Weiner, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC. The case is Senne et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, case number 3:14-cv-00608, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. MARTIN O'BOYLE: Town of Gulf Stream Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Trevor Aaronson, writing for Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, reports that the Town of Gulf Stream, in Palm Beach County, filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court on February 12 on behalf of state municipalities, municipal agencies and their contractors. The lawsuit alleges that South Florida millionaire Martin O'Boyle and organizations affiliated with him -- including the O'Boyle Law Firm, Citizens Awareness Foundation and Our Public Records LLC -- victimized local governments and contractors throughout the state as part of a "RICO enterprise." "Through their RICO Enterprise, the Defendants have associated-in- fact with the sole purpose of unlawfully and illegally extracting settlement payments from the Class Members by first using the mails and the wires to deliver and advance frivolous public records request that are often intentionally inconspicuous," the lawsuit alleges. "Then, the Defendants, through their RICO Enterprise, immediately use the mails and the wires to extort their victims by demanding that these municipal entities and agencies immediately settle with them and pay their allegedly incurred attorneys' fees and costs as provided for in the public records statute, or, face protracted litigation and a flurry of additional frivolous public records request and lawsuits." The 49-page lawsuit alleges that O'Boyle and his organizations filed nearly 2,000 public records with the Town of Gulf Stream. Mr. O'Boyle has said that the firm broke no laws and that the lawsuits it filed were completely legal and followed state statutes regarding penalties for not complying with the public records laws. The Gulf Stream lawsuit follows a Florida Center for Investigative Reporting story on Citizens Awareness Foundation and the O'Boyle Law Firm and their practice of filing numerous public records requests against public and private agencies and then suing for non-compliance with those requests. FCIR found more than 140 lawsuits filed in 27 counties by the Citizens Awareness Foundation and sister organization Our Public Records LLC. Citizens Awareness Foundation has since suspended operations as the Florida Bar investigates members of the law firm. In January, state Sen. Wilton Simpson and Rep. Halsey Beshears sponsored legislation that would amend the public records laws to protect private companies doing business with state agencies, though open records advocates say the bills as written would impede access to public records. MARY JO AVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn L. Knappenberger v. Mary Jo Avery PC, a domestic Professional Corporation, and Mary Jo Avery, an individual, Case No. 3:15-cv-00287-JE (D. Or., February 18, 2015) is an action for alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Avery PC is a professional corporation, licensed to do business in the state of Oregon, providing real estate services to the public. Mary Jo Avery is an individual manager and owner of Avery PC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig A. Crispin, Esq. Shelley D. Russell, Esq. Christopher A. Morehead, Esq. CRISPIN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97221 Telephone: (503) 293-5770 Facsimile: (503) 293-5766 E-mail: crispin@employmentlaw-nw.com shelley@employmentlaw-nw.com christopher@employmentlaw-nw.com MATTHEWS HOMES: Insurer Hit With $4.5-Mil. Bad Faith Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------ Insurance Journal reports that Everest Indemnity Insurance Co. was hit with a $4.5 million verdict after a Nevada state court jury on Feb. 12 said the insurer acted in bad faith by refusing to cover a construction company's defense costs in a class action stemming from a levee collapse that caused the flooding of hundreds of homes. Courtroom View Network reported that jurors deliberated for only a few hours before deciding that Everest had no basis for refusing to cover defense costs referred to them by Matthews Homes, which held a $2 million commercial general liability policy from the insurer, after Matthews was sued by a class of homeowners claiming poorly designed drains exacerbated the effects of a flood in 2008. The next phase of the trial will consider punitive damages and was scheduled to begin Feb 20. The litigation began with the collapse of a levee in Fernley, Nev. in 2008. The plaintiff class claimed the levee failed because of over pumping ordered by the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, but Everest said the levee's walls gave due to heavy rain, Courtroom View Network reported. Everest initially denied coverage on the basis Matthews' contractor's general liability policy had expired at the time of the flood, but plaintiffs' attorneys argued the insurer knew Matthews had tail coverage that would apply to the flood even though the CGL policy ended in 2007. After acknowledging the error, Everest subsequently denied coverage because of an earth movement exclusion in the CGL policy. That decision was made in bad faith, because they failed to adequately investigate the cause of the levee failure, plaintiffs said. Everest argued the company reasonably concluded the exclusion applied since the movement of earth and soil caused the levee breach, and that the plaintiffs' complaint states mud entered their homes. The insurer claimed the exclusion applied even if earth movement is only one of several factors that cause property damage. Matthews settled the underlying suit for $5 million in 2012, and as part of the deal the class plaintiffs were assigned any breach of contract and bad faith claims Matthews held against Everest. The case is Elizabeth Reimers, et al. v. Everest Indemnity Insurance Co. and is being heard in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada in Washoe County. MEDTRONIC INC: Court OKs Distribution Plan in Firefighters' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul A. Magnuson issued an order approving a distribution plan in the case captioned MINNEAPOLIS FIREFIGHTERS' RELIEF ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. 08-6324 (PAM/AJB), (D. Minn.). Lead Plaintiffs, on notice to Defendants' Counsel, asked the Court for an order approving a distribution plan for the Net Settlement Fund in this class action. "Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan is granted and the plan for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants is approved," ruled Judge Magnuson. "Rust's fees and expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in connection with the Initial Distribution as set forth in Exhibit D to the Rabe Declaration are approved, and Lead Counsel are authorized to direct payment of $1,663,635.41 out of the Settlement Fund to Rust for the unpaid balance of such fees and expenses." The February 24, 2015 Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/oqAXMEfrom Leagle.com, incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 20, 2012, the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and the Rabe Declaration. All terms used in the order have the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation, the Notice, or the Rabe Declaration. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Nears Concussion Settlement With Retired Players ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Mihoces, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that the lingering legal battle between the NFL and its retired players over concussions and their long-term effects moved a step closer to final settlement on Feb. 13. At the urging of a federal judge, both sides agreed to make adjustments in a previously reached, tentative settlement of suits by more than 5,000 ex-players against the league. This is the second time the NFL and attorneys for ex-players have altered their agreement in response to U.S. District Court Judge Anita Brody in Philadelphia. Judge Brody is considering whether to give final approval. The proposed 65-year, class action settlement would cost the NFL hundreds of millions of dollars and apply to players (not just those who sued) who retired prior to July 7, 2014 -- the date Brody gave preliminary approval. Judge Brody issued a Feb. 2 order recommending changes to "enhance the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy" of the agreement. She set a deadline for Feb. 13 for the parties to address her concerns. They responded in an electronic court filing hours before the deadline. "We are confident these enhancements address the issues raised by the court and further strengthen the settlement's benefits," Christopher Seeger, co-lead attorney for the retired players, said in a statement. " . . . We look forward to finalizing this agreement so that retired players can begin taking advantage of its benefits." Over the past three and a half years, more 240 suits have been filed. They were consolidated in federal court in Philadelphia. Retirees alleged that for decades the NFL knowingly failed to protect them from concussions and long-term such as depression, dementia and other disorders. Under the tentative settlement, ex-players or their estates would be eligible for monetary awards. Individual awards would vary depending on the nature of the brain impairment, age at diagnosis and number of NFL seasons played. Among potential awards: Up to $5 million for a diagnosis of ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), up to $4 million for diagnosis after death with the brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and up to $3.5 million for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. The Feb. 13 revisions addressed all five points raised by Judge Brody. Previously, only NFL playing seasons counted toward eligibility for awards. The judge urged "some" credit for play in the NFL's European league (known as the World League of American Football, the NFL Europe League and the NFL Europa League). The two sides agreed to a half-season of credit toward award eligibility for each season in Europe. Previous terms included $75 million to provide retired players with neurological testing, monitoring, counseling and treatment. The judge wanted assurance that would be available "regardless of any funding limitations." The new language says that if $75 million is insufficient the NFL agrees to pay what's "necessary." Eligibility for the death with CTE benefit had previously been available only in cases that were diagnosed prior to the July 7, 2014 date the judge granted preliminary approval. The judge suggested an extension to the date of final settlement. The two sides agreed and said there will be a 270-day grace period for CTE diagnosis for any players whose deaths occurs between the July 7 preliminary approval and the date of final approval. Objectors to the settlement said the CTE award should be available through the 65-year life of the agreement. Judge Brody suggested a "hardship provision" to help ex-players with attorneys' fees if they appeal awards. The revised agreement said retirees can request a "hardship" waiver of the $1,000 fee to make an appeal. Judge Brody said there should be "reasonable accommodation" if retired players are unable to provide required medical records due to events beyond their control (such as a flood or fire). The revised agreement provides a "limited exemption . . . in the event of unavailability" of records. In August of 2013, the two sides reached a tentative, $765 million settlement. It included a $675 million award fund for retirees diagnosed with brain impairments. In January of 2014, Judge Brody denied preliminary approval, questioning whether the agreement was sufficiently funded. A revised settlement reached in June of 2014 removed the $675 million cap and made the award fund open ended. The judge granted preliminary approval. According to court documents, the settlement will apply to about 25,000 former players, provided they were retired by last July 7. Retirees had the choice to "opt out" of the settlement and retain their rights to sue. According to court documents, only about 200 opted out before the deadline last Oct. 14. "With over 99 percent participation, it is clear that the retired player community overwhelmingly supports this settlement," said Seeger. In the settlement, the NFL makes no admission of guilt and ex- players do not have to prove their conditions are related to NFL football. MINNESOTA: Sex Offender Program Class Action Bench Trial Begins --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Nelson, writing for MPR News, reports that a lawyer representing people locked up in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program pressed the state's human services chief on Feb. 13 to explain why Minnesota's done little to change the system. Dan Gustafson grilled state Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson over why the state is dragging its feet on a long list of recommended changes to the program, including an independent panel to evaluate clients, creation of a special court to handle commitment cases and a firmer timeline for decisions about confinement. The recommendations came from a state task force, but Ms. Jesson conceded the state had not acted on them. She said even she thought the system for evaluating and possibly releasing clients was flawed when she arrived in 2011. "It took too long," she testified. Most of the recommendations were included in bills before the Legislature last session, but they failed to get to the governor's desk. Lawmakers have been divided over whether to improve the expensive and controversial sex offender program or simply extend prison sentences for sex offenders. The program takes former prisoners after they've served prison or juvenile sentences for sex crimes. The 700-plus residents of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program have filed a class-action lawsuit against the state, contending their indefinite detention at facilities in St. Peter and Moose Lake isn't constitutional and doesn't provide adequate treatment. A bench trial in the case started on Feb. 9 before U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul, and psychological experts have been testifying about the program for several days. Judge Frank has been highly critical of the program in the past, calling it "clearly broken" in a ruling last year. Ms. Jesson on Feb. 13 laid out a half dozen improvements her department had pursued administratively. They included remodeling at the facilities, a request to the legislature for money to provide more facilities, bonding for a facility for a final stage of treatment, a bigger budget request and a request to provide more support from the state courts. "We have been as responsive as we can be within the power and funding that we've had," Ms. Jesson testified. She also said an administrative attempt to offer an alternative treatment program at a former state hospital in Cambridge, Minn., had faced stiff opposition, despite the low risk of clients her department planned to move there, including some in an assisted living program. "We were taken aback by the community reaction," Ms. Jesson said in court. That said, Ms. Jesson testified that her department's options were limited by state law, and that the Legislature would ultimately have to make the most important changes to the program if it was struck down in federal court. NEW YORK TRANSIT: Sued Over Worker's Unlawful Forced Retirement --------------------------------------------------------------- Prakash J. Paingankar v. New York City Transit Authority, William Desantis, Robert Eskenazi, Cliff Slater, and John and Jane Doe (said names being fictitious, the persons intended being those who aided and abetted the unlawful conduct of the named defendants), Case No. 1:15-cv-01143-PGG (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2015) is an action for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment and money damages to remedy the alleged unlawful forced retirement of the Plaintiff, which was based on considerations of age and disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. New York City Transit Authority is a public-benefit authority, organized under the laws of the state of New York. NYCTA is an agency created to, among other things, oversee the mass transportation systems in the City of New York and surrounding areas. The Individual Defendants are officers or employees of NYCTA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel O. Maduegbuna, Esq. MADUEGBUNA COPPER LLP 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 232-0155 Facsimile: (212) 232-0156 E-mail: sam.m@mcande.com NEWS CORPORATION: To Be Indemnified by 21st Century Fox ------------------------------------------------------- News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for certain payments made by the Company that relate to, or arise from, the U.K. Newspaper Matters, including all payments in connection with the Wilder Litigation. On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers of 21st Century Fox's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Wilder Litigation"). The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World. The suit named as defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as defendants the Company's subsidiary, NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited), and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to comprise February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint, and on April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to comprise July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and plaintiffs opposed those motions. On November 21, 2014, defendants filed their replies to plaintiffs' opposition, and the motions were fully submitted to the court. The Company's management believes these claims are entirely without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for certain payments made by the Company that relate to, or arise from, the U.K. Newspaper Matters, including all payments in connection with the Wilder Litigation. NEWS CORPORATION: Oral Argument Heard in Certification Motion ------------------------------------------------------------- News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the district court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs' motion seeking certification of a class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased in-store marketing services. On April 8, 2014, in connection with a pending action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which The Dial Corporation, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., Foster Poultry Farms, Smithfield Foods, Inc., HP Hood LLC, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum Brands, Inc. ("Spectrum") allege various claims under federal and state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America Incorporated ("NAI"), News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. ("NAM FSI"), and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. ("NAM In-Store Services" and, together with News Corporation, NAI and NAM FSI, the "NAM Group"), plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on consent of the parties. The fourth amended complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims both individually and on behalf of two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs' purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The NAM Group answered the fourth amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21, 2014, and discovery is proceeding. The District Court subsequently permitted Spectrum to voluntarily dismiss its claims without prejudice, subject to certain conditions. On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April 5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs did not, however, move to certify a class of purchasers of free-standing insert coupons. The NAM Group filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion on October 10, 2014, and the District Court heard oral argument on the motion on December 12, 2014. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lea Reich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00865 (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 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 OCALA, FL: Judge Dismisses Fire User Fee Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Susan Latham Carr, writing for Ocala.com, reports that Fifth Judicial Circuit Judge Edward L. Scott on Feb. 13 dismissed with prejudice Discount Sleep of Ocala, LLC's class action suit against the city of Ocala seeking a decision declaring that the fire user fee the city has been collecting is illegal and unconstitutional. The Plaintiff's attorney, Derek Schroth, of Bowen Radson Schroth, said in an email on Feb. 13 that he filed a Notice of Appeal. The court ruled that the suit, which was filed on Feb. 20, 2014, was filed more than four years after the ordinance was enacted and thus was barred by the four-year statute of limitations. In an email on Feb. 13, Assistant City Attorney George Franjola wrote: "Judge Scott wrote a thorough, well-reasoned order. I feel confident that it will be upheld on appeal." OLD HOME KITCHENS: Recalls Creme Cakes Due to Undeclared Pecans --------------------------------------------------------------- Old Home Kitchens is voluntarily recalling "Sock It To Me Creme Cake" under "the Bakery baked with pride" label with a production code of 150301100 thru 150310700 ink jet coded on plastic dome, because they contain undeclared pecans. People who have allergy or sensitivity to pecans run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled product was distributed through Wal-Mart Stores in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The recall was initiated after Old Home Kitchens discovered that product containing pecans was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of pecans. No illnesses have been reported to date. Old Home Kitchens has alerted Wal-Mart, which has removed this product from its stores. The recall is being made with the knowledge of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Consumers who have purchased "Sock It To Me Creme Cake", under "the Bakery baked with pride" label with the codes noted are urged to return it to Wal-Mart Stores for product replacement or refund. No other product is included in this recall. PANDORA MEDIA: Plaintiff Appeals Privacy Class Action Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for OnlineMediaDaily, reports that a recent pro-Pandora decision in a privacy lawsuit "guts the protections" that lawmakers intended for consumers, an attorney for Michigan resident Peter Deacon told an appellate court. "This case involves a privacy statute that was written to prevent the disclosure of consumers' deeply personal choices in the books they read, in the movies they watch, and, as relevant today, in the music they listen to," lawyer Ryan Andrews told a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at a 30-minute hearing on Feb. 11 in San Francisco. "The Michigan legislature clearly would have considered the disclosures by Pandora to be covered by this statute." Mr. Deacon is appealing a ruling issued by U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong in Oakland, Calif, who dismissed the potential class-action lawsuit before trial. The battle dates to 2011, when Deacon alleged in court papers that Pandora's integration with Facebook violated Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act. That law prohibits companies that rent, lend or sell music (as well as books and videos) from disclosing customers' identities without their consent. Facebook's earliest iteration of its "instant personalization" program, the company automatically shared logged-in Facebook users' names and photos with outside companies. That program was launched on an opt-out basis. Judge Armstrong dismissed Deacon's lawsuit in 2012 on the grounds that Michigan's privacy law -- which is more than 20 years old -- doesn't apply when companies stream tracks. She said the law only applies to companies that lend, rent or sell material. Mr. Deacon is appealing that decision. "What Pandora's doing can be construed as lending," his attorney argued to the panel. He added that the crux of the ruling -- based on the judge's opinion that "streaming" isn't "lending" -- is "a very dangerous precedent that basically guts the protections that were intended by this law." Pandora's attorney, Jacob Sommer, countered that Pandora functions more like a DJ at a party, or a traditional radio station, than a "lending" service. He added that Pandora's doesn't enable users to "borrow" music, as much as "listen" to music that someone else is playing for them. Judge Paul Huck questioned that logic, saying that a radio station doesn't have profiles of users the way Pandora does. "That's the whole issue," Judge Huck said. "They know something about you." Some of the judges' questions suggested that the panel might send the matter to the Michigan Supreme Court, so that state judges could decide how to interpret the law. "It's the Michigan Supreme Court that's the expositor of Michigan law," Judge Barry Silverman said. "Why shouldn't they get the first shot at this?" PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Trade Manipulation -------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania alleges stock options for a large pharmaceutical company were manipulated illegally. Stephen Rabin filed the lawsuit against "John Doe market makers" on Feb. 5, alleging the market makers illegally pre-arranged options trades for Pfizer stock on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. The lawsuit doesn't name any specific market maker, but alleges they "inflated the size of the options open interest pool for Pfizer stock by flooding the market with over a million additional option contracts one day before the ex-dividend date of (Pfizer) common stock." The result, the lawsuit alleges, is that the bulk of dividend payments would go to market makers rather than to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleges the actions of market makers have damaged other investors by "hundreds of millions of dollars." The plaintiff seeks class status beginning on Feb. 6, 2010, to the present, an unspecified amount in damages and court costs. The plaintiff is represented by Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- Robin Switzenbaum -- rswitzenbaum@bm.net -- and Phyllis Parker of Berger & Montague, P.C., in Philadelphia, and Jeffrey Squire -- squire@bespc.com -- and Lawrence Eagel -- eagel@bespc.com -- of Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., in New York City. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case number 2:15-cv-00551. PHILIP MORRIS: Seeks to Disqualify Justice From Hearing Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Parloff, writing for Fortune, reports that plaintiffs lawyers seek ouster of judge, though they donated even more trying to defeat him. On Feb. 9, plaintiffs lawyers who won a famous $10.1 billion class-action verdict against Philip Morris in 2003, filed papers seeking to disqualify an Illinois supreme court justice from hearing an appeal of the case, on the grounds that the tobacco company's parent spent $731,000 to support the justice's reelection in November -- more than 60%, they say, of all funds spent on his behalf. On the other hand, it's important to bear in mind that the plaintiffs law firms on the same case-over the allegedly deceptive marketing of "light" cigarettes-reportedly donated more than twice that amount trying to defeat the judge. The motion, powerful at first glance, notes that Altria spent $500,000 in the final month before Justice Lloyd Karmeier's retention election, at which, under Illinois law, he needed 60% of the votes to retain his seat. He squeaked by with 60.8%. Under these circumstances, argue plaintiffs lawyers led by Stephen Tillery of Tillery Korein, Justice Karmeier must now recuse himself from the case, known as Price v. Philip Morris, under standards established by a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In that case, known as Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the Court held that the "probability of actual bias on the part of a judge" becomes constitutionally "intolerable" when a party before him is "a person with a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case, by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent." The obvious countervailing factor is that the election in question was awash with expenditures from people on both sides of the cases before Justice Karmeier, with more than $2 million reportedly having been spent by four plaintiffs lawyers and three plaintiffs law firms on negative TV ads and robo-call campaigns against Justice Karmeier. The plaintiffs law firms specifically involved in the Price case, or individual members of those firms, reportedly contributed at least $1.7 million of that sum. As in many class-action cases, the plaintiffs lawyers in the Price case have far more at stake than any individual class member -- a fact that Justice Karmeier himself alluded to in a post-election interview with the Southern Illinoisan. The day after the election, that paper reported -- in a passage the plaintiffs now cite in their motion as still more evidence of bias and an independent grounds for disqualification -- as follows: "The judge said the lawyers could stand to gain financially if he were ousted from the bench. One less judge to vote against a judgment in either case could net plaintiffs' a substantial sum -- $1.77 billion in legal fees for a $10 billion settlement. "'It's the size of these fees that is distorting the system,' Justice Karmeier said. 'The money is so substantial.'" The plaintiffs say these candid remarks "reasonably suggest that he has already decided the case on its merits . Not only did Justice Karmeier suggest that removing him from the bench would increase the chance that the current appeal would be resolved in Appellee's favor, but he specifically stated that the attorneys' fees at issue were 'distorting the system.'" Altria spokesperson Brian May says, in an interview, that the disqualification motion is "meritless" and that Philip Morris will be "responding with the court in due course." Plaintiffs attorney Stephen Tillery declines comment on his motion. The Price case, filed in Madison County in 2000, is a state-wide consumer fraud class action alleging that Philip Morris's Marlboro Lights were deceptively advertised as safer than regular cigarettes, when in fact they were, if anything, more dangerous. The plaintiffs won a $10.1 billion verdict that same year. (Madison County, in Southern Illinois, near St. Louis, Missouri, has a reputation as a pro-plaintiff venue for class actions.) In 2004 Justice Karmeier won election to the state supreme court in what was, at the time, the most expensive judicial election campaign ever waged. In 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the Price verdict, by a 4-2 margin, with the seventh justice not participating. The majority found the complaint to be barred by a provision in the state consumer protection law requiring deference to certain U.S. Federal Trade Commission determinations. Justice Karmeier, in a separate concurrence, wrote that the plaintiffs had also, in his view, failed to show any actual damages. (In consumer class actions, class members need not show any health injury; the injury is simply the fact that they didn't receive what they thought they were buying. Both named plaintiffs in Price continued smoking after learning that "lights" were no safer than regular cigarettes. Accordingly, Justice Karmeier concluded, they weren't harmed by the alleged misrepresentations.) Despite the 4-2 margin by which the court overturned the Price verdict, Justice Karmeier's vote was decisive because, under state law, four votes are necessary for victory at the supreme court level. Without his vote, the lower appellate court judgment -- affirming the verdict -- would have stood. In 2008, the plaintiffs revived the suit, claiming that an intervening U.S. Supreme Court ruling cast doubt on the state supreme court's ruling. In April 2014 an intermediate appeals court accepted the plaintiffs' argument, and restored the $10.1 billion verdict. The state supreme court then agreed to rehear the case, though it has not yet scheduled oral arguments. By that time, due to changes in the composition of the state supreme court, Justice Karmeier was one of only two justices still on the court who voted to dismiss the Price case in 2005. Also by that time, Justice Karmeier's 10-year term was expiring, so he was facing an election. As it approached, the Price plaintiffs moved to disqualify him for the first time, citing the money Philip Morris spent in the 2004 election. Both Justice Karmeier and the court rejected the motion, citing, in part, the fact that the moneys spent by Altria then were independent expenditures, not direct contributions to Justice Karmeier's campaign. But they also stressed the distinctive circumstances of the motion: With one justice having recused himself throughout the case and expected to do so again, and two others having voted to uphold the verdict in 2005 and likely to do that again, too, the plaintiffs would be virtually assured of victory if they could knock Justice Karmeier off the case. That's because only three justices would remain, and that would be insufficient to render a ruling under the state's quorum rules, requiring a majority of at least four. After the election, with Justice Karmeier's thin victory allegedly aided by a last-minute flood of cash from Philip Morris parent Altria, the plaintiffs filed a second motion to disqualify -- the one occasioning this article. But there's one last, weird twist to this story. Altria claims it actually never donated money to support Justice Karmeier -- or at least never intended to. The plaintiffs lawyers argue, in turn, that Altria's failure to own up to what it did just makes matters worse for both it and Justice Karmeier. The $731,000 that are the focus of the new motion were given by Altria to the Republican State Leadership Committee in Washington, D.C., with $500,000 of it being donated last October 6 and October 8, less than a month before the November 4 election. On October 23, the national RSLC, in turn, gave $950,000 to the RSLC- IE, which is a group devoted to making "independent expenditures in the state of Illinois," according to its tax filings. That same day, the RSLC-IE transferred $950,000 to Revolutionary Media Group for "advertising - television," according to campaign finance filings. The motion asserts that those TV ads supported Justice Karmeier. In an interview with Fortune, Altria spokesperson May states: "We informed the [national] RSLC -- both orally and in writing -- that the company's funds could not be used in any way for judicial elections." He declines to comment on whether the RSLC disregarded Altria's conditions, noting that Philip Morris would respond more fully to the disqualification motion in court. At the very least, the entire spectacle is a vivid demonstration of the corrosive impact that big-time financial contributions in judicial election campaigns have on the credibility of court rulings. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORT: May Expedite Section 216(B) Notice ---------------------------------------------------------- In PEGGY JO SMITH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., and RONALD D. ROMAIN, individually and as president and secretary of PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendants, NO. 3:13-CV-00221-RLY-WGH, (S.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff moved the court for an order authorizing her to send first stage notice of the pending collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to all current and former employees of Defendants, Professional Transportation, Inc. and Ronald D. Romain, who worked at any time as a Branch Administrator from December 9, 2011, to the present. Plaintiff's motion has largely been resolved by the Parties' Joint Stipulation for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Notice Under the FLSA. Defendants objected to Sections IV and VIII of Plaintiff's proposed notice. The Plaintiff's proposed notice states that, "If you choose to join this action, you will be represented by counsel for Ms. Smith." Defendants argued that the notice forms should inform the putative class action members that they can retain their own counsel or proceed pro se. Each party cited non-binding case law to support its position. According to Chief District Judge Richard L. Young's opinion entered on February 25, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/JUgXRGfrom Leagle.com, the court is of the view that "if a putative class member intends to join this existing lawsuit and signs the consent, then he or she agrees to become part of the class and be represented by class counsel . . . Language to the contrary may confuse the recipients and unnecessarily complicate the opt-in process and the subsequent proceedings." In addition, the proposed notice specifically informs putative collection action members of their right not to join the lawsuit and of their right to retain their own counsel and file their own FLSA lawsuits, ruled Judge Young. Defendants' objection is overruled. Moreover, Plaintiff's proposed notice provides that, if a putative class member decides to join the action, he or she has 90 days to complete the consent form and mail it to class counsel. Defendants argued that this "opt-in" period should be 45 days, not 90. Plaintiff's counsel moved for the longer period due to the difficulty they have experienced in locating putative opt-in plaintiffs in other collective action cases involving Defendants, including Miller v. PTI, No. 3:09-cv-111-RLY-WGH and Matthews v. PTI, No. 3:11-cv-97-RLY-WGH. Plaintiff's counsel explained that employee turnover at PTI tends to be high, and the employees are often transitory and fail to leave forwarding addresses. Defendants responded that, in those prior cases, the class was far larger than the class at issue. The court found the better option is to extend the opt-in period to 90 days. Therefore, Defendants' objection is overruled. For all these reasons, Plaintiff's Third Motion to Facilitate and Expedite Section 216(B) Notice is granted, the court said. Plaintiff's Second Motion to Facilitate and Expedite Section 216(B) Notice is denied as moot, concluded Judge Young. PEGGY JO SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H. Cassell -- jhcassell@eronlaw.net -- ERON LAW OFFICE, PA & Terry D. Smith -- tsmith@smithminerlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF TERRY D. SMITH. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION INC., Defendant, represented by Brian D. Burbrink -- brian.burbrink@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Christopher C. Murray -- christopher.murray@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Debra Ann Mastrian -- dmastrian@kdlegal.com -- KRIEG DEVAULT LLP, Libby Yin Goodknight -- lgoodknight@kdlegal.com -- KRIEG DEVAULT LLP & Patrick F. Hulla -- patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC. RONALD D. ROMAIN, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Burbrink, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Christopher C. Murray, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Debra Ann Mastrian, KRIEG DEVAULT LLP, Libby Yin Goodknight, KRIEG DEVAULT LLP & Patrick F. Hulla, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC (Kansas City). PURINA ANIMAL: Recalls DuMOR(R) Sheep Formula Due to High Copper ---------------------------------------------------------------- Purina Animal Nutrition LLC has initiated a limited voluntary recall of DuMOR(R) Sheep Formula in Florida due to the potential for a higher-than-acceptable level of copper, which can cause health issues and potential mortality. There has been one report of sheep mortality associated with the single lot that is being recalled. Symptoms of copper toxicity in sheep include: lethargy and anemia, grinding of teeth, thirst, off feed/poor appetite, pale to yellow mucous membranes, red/dark purple colored urine and recumbancy. Death usually occurs one to two days after onset of clinical symptoms. Customers should discontinue feeding the product immediately. The product was distributed to seven Tractor Supply Company stores in Florida. The recall is limited to DuMOR(R) Sheep Formula produced at the Lake City, Florida plant on Nov. 28, 2014. The single lot number is: Formula No. Item No. Description Lot No. ----------- -------- ----------- ------- 55EA 0047317 DuMOR(R)Sheep Formula4N OV28LKC1 Customers can find the lot number on the sewing strip of each bag. The product was only distributed in Florida. Retailers have been contacted and told to immediately quarantine any remaining recalled product and notify customers who purchased the product. Customers who purchased this product should return remaining bags to their retailer. For more information on the product recall, contact Customer Service at 888-719-8066. The number will be staffed 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435386.htm RAYMOND JAMES: No Class Certified in Actions v. Morgan Keegan ------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond James Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that no class has been certified in class action lawsuits against certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions Bank. Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions Bank, have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of shareholders of Regions and investors who purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds"). The Regions Funds were formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity which was at one time a subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan affiliates, but an entity which was not part of our Morgan Keegan acquisition. The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that the Regions Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the funds. In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee approved the settlement of the class action and the derivative action regarding the closed end funds for $62 million and $6 million, respectively. No class has been certified. Certain of the shareholders in the funds and other interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class action lawsuits. RAYMOND JAMES: Trial Date in Retail Purchasers' Suit Postponed -------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond James Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a class action was brought on behalf of retail purchasers of certain municipal bonds in September 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In September 2014, the District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted class certification. The trial date which was originally set for September 2014 has been postponed. Other individual investors and investor groups have also filed arbitration claims or separate civil claims, which are pending in various stages. RAYONIER INC: Saxena White and Berstein Litowitz Named Lead Atty ---------------------------------------------------------------- In re Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1395- J-32JBT, (M.D. Fla.) came before the Court on the motion of the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers's ("Operating Engineers") and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund ("Lake Worth") for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their selection of lead counsel, their supplemental brief, and the parties' agreed motion for briefing schedule. The motion for appointment and supplemental brief ask the Court to jointly appoint Operating Engineers and Lake Worth as lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) and to approve their selection of lead counsel to represent the class. No other motion for appointment as lead plaintiff or opposition to this motion for appointment has been filed. Accordingly, in an order entered February 25, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/b7DTd8from Leagle.com, District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ruled that: * The Motion of the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Their Selection of Lead Counsel is granted. * The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund are appointed as Lead Plaintiff. * Lead Plaintiff's selection of Saxena White P.A. and Berstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Lead Counsel is approved. * No motion, request for discovery, or other pretrial proceeding will be initiated or filed by any plaintiff without the approval of Lead Counsel, so as to prevent duplicative pleadings or discovery. No settlement negotiations should be conducted without the approval of Lead Counsel. * The Agreed Motion for Briefing Schedule is granted in part and denied in part. The court sets this preliminary case schedule: a. On or before April 7, 2015, Lead Plaintiff shall file a Consolidated Complaint. b. On or before May 15, 2015, defendants shall file any answer or motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. c. On or before June 15, 2015, Lead Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the motion to dismiss. d. On or before July 15, 2015, defendants shall file any reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss, not to exceed fifteen pages in length. e. The motion to dismiss is set for hearing on August 25, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., in the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 10D, 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The Court intends to discuss scheduling for the remainder of the case at the June 17, 2015 hearing. f. The requirements of Local Rule 4.04(b) are suspended until further order of the Court. The Court directed the Clerk of court to terminate any attorney who has not yet sought leave to appear pro hac vice and/or registered for electronic filing with the Middle District of Florida. Mary Sating, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis P. McConville -- fmcconville@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, LLP, Jayne Arnold Goldstein -- jagoldstein@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, LLP & Peretz Bronstein, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Samuel Keasler, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Stephen Polaszek -- cpolaszek@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA. Lake Worth Firefighters Pension Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, LLP, Brandon Marsh -- brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, David Ronald Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, Jonathan Daniel Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Lester R. Hooker, Saxena White, PA & Robert D. Klausner -- bob@robertdklausner.com -- Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson. Michael Christie, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Casey E. Sadler -- csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Howard G. Smith, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, Joseph E. White, III -- jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White, PA & Lester R. Hooker, Saxena White, PA. Will Brown, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm. Rayonier Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. Trippe, Jr., Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Janine Cone Metcalf, Jones Day, Joni Alexis Poitier, Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones & Michael J. McConnell, Jones Day. Paul G Boynton, Defendant, represented by Christopher Ryan Maloney -- cmaloney@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP & Jeffrey R. Wang -- jwang@fklaw.com -- Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman, LLP. Hans E Vanden Noort, Defendant, represented by Andrew Schilling -- aschilling@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler LLP, Gennifer Lynn Bridges, Burr & Forman, LLP, John Robert Chiles -- jchiles@burr.com -- Burr & Forman, LLP & John Martin Hendele, IV -- jhendele@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler LLP. David L Nunes, Defendant, represented by Charles M. Trippe, Jr., Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Janine Cone Metcalf, Jones Day, Joni Alexis Poitier, Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones & Michael J. McConnell, Jones Day. H Edwin Kiker, Defendant, represented by Charles M. Trippe, Jr., Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Janine Cone Metcalf -- jmetcalf@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Joni Alexis Poitier, Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones & Michael J. McConnell -- mmcconnell@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. Pension Trust Fund For Operating Engineers, Movant, represented by Lester R. Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White, PA. RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Feb. 13 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on February 5, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, on behalf of the shareholders of Riverbed Technology, Inc. against Riverbed and its Board of Directors for, among other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Riverbed Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading Proxy Statement The complaint arises out of a December 15, 2014, press release announcing that Riverbed had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Thoma Bravo, LLC and Teachers' Private Capital pursuant to which Riverbed shareholders would receive $21 per share in cash. The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all other similarly situated shareholders of Riverbed. The named plaintiff is represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP. The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a materially false and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of the Exchange Act. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material to Riverbed shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Riverbed stock prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction on December 15, 2014, and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than sixty days from February 13, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder information form on our website, or by e-mail at info@robbinsarroyo.com Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class member. Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates its practice in the area of shareholder rights litigation, represents individual and institutional investors in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions. ROSS EARLE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Connie Bishop, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., a Florida professional association, and Jacob E. Ensor, individually, Case No. 2:15-cv- 14051-KAM (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Keley Jacobson, Esq. 1363 Bayshore Drive Fort Pierce, FL 34949 Telephone: (772) 332-5474 E-mail: skeleyjacobson@gmail.com - and - Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq. 5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: (772) 234-5150 Facsimile: (772) 234-5231 E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com RUST-OLEUM CORP: "Sullivan" Suit Included in Restore Products MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Sullivan, et al. v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00023, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01497 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2602. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising out of allegations that the deck and concrete resurfacing paint products manufactured and sold by Rust-Oleum Corporation under the Restore brand name are defective because they allegedly bubble, flake, chip, peel, or otherwise degrade prematurely, contrary to the representations in defendant's marketing, labeling, and product warranty. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. Burke, Jr., Esq. QUANTUM LEGAL LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1310 St. Louis, Mo 63101 Telephone: (847) 433-4500 Facsimile: (847) 433-2500 E-mail: richard@qulegal.com - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market St., Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com SAGENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Atracurium Besylate Injections -------------------------------------------------------------- Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced the voluntary nationwide recall of two lots of Atracurium Besylate Injection, USP, 50mg/5mL single-dose vials (NDC 25021-659-05) and four lots of Atracurium Besylate Injection, USP, 100mg/10mL multi-dose vials (NDC 25021- 672-10) manufactured by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and distributed by Sagent. Sagent has initiated this voluntary recall of Atracurium Besylate Injection, USP, 50mg/5mL and 100mg/10mL to the user level due to FDA observations pertaining to aseptic and GMP practices at the manufacturer's site potentially impacting product sterility. Non-sterility of a drug administered via the intravenous route has the potential to result in infections, which could be fatal, especially in patients who are immunocompromised. Sagent has transferred the manufacture of this product to its own facility and this product manufactured at the Sagent facility will not be impacted by the recall. Sagent is not aware of any adverse patient events resulting from the use of the subject product lots. The lot numbers being recalled are VATA012, VATA015 (50mg/5mL) and VATB012, VATB013, VATB014, VATB017 (100mg/10mL) which were distributed to hospitals, wholesalers and distributors nationwide from February 2014 through February 2015. Atracurium Besylate Injection, USP, 50mg/5mL and 100mg/10mL is indicated, as an adjunct to general anesthesia, to facilitate endotracheal intubation and to provide skeletal muscle relaxation during surgery or mechanical ventilation, and is supplied in single-dose and multi-dose vials. Customers are being notified by fax, email, FedEx, and/or certified mail that includes arrangements for return of all recalled product. Customers have been instructed to examine their inventory immediately and to quarantine, discontinue distribution of and return the recalled lots of product. Customers who may have further distributed this product have been requested to identify their customers and notify them at once of this product recall. The necessary form by which to document this information as well as other information regarding this recall is available at www.Sagentpharma.com Any questions about returning unused product should be directed to the customer call center at (866) 625-1618 M-F 8am-7pm CST. Healthcare workers who have medical questions about Atracurium Besylate Injection, USP may contact Sagent Medical Affairs (866- 625-1618, Option 3) M-F 8am-5pm CST. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this product. Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this product should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA3500 available at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc., founded in 2006, is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing, manufacturing, sourcing and marketing pharmaceutical products, with a specific emphasis on injectables. Sagent has created a unique global network of resources, comprising rapid development capabilities, sophisticated manufacturing and innovative drug delivery technologies, resulting in an extensive and rapidly expanding pharmaceutical product portfolio that fulfills the evolving needs of patients. SPICECO OF AVENEL: Recalls Sweet Hungarian Paprika Due to Peanuts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Spiceco of Avenel, NJ is recalling PRIDE OF SZEGED SWEET HUNGARIAN PAPRIKA because it may contain undeclared Peanut Allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to Peanut Allergen run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. This product was sold between September 18, 2014 and October 13, 2014 to distributors located in IL, NJ, CT, MI, FL, NY, OH, CA and MD .The State Of Virginia was incorrectly listed in the previously issued press releases. Pride of Szeged Hungarian Paprika is packaged in a metal tin container with the lot numbers 091617PAHU05PS and 091717PAHU05PS printed on the lower edge of the lid and UPC Number 0 78006 00010 2. No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported to date. The problem was brought to Spiceco's attention on January 27, 2015 after the Tennessee Department of Agriculture conducted a routine retail food product sampling in the Cleveland area on a 5 oz. container of Pride of Szeged Hungarian Paprika which revealed the presence of peanut allergen. Lot number 091617PAHU05PS showed positive for the presence of a peanut allergen not disclosed on the product label. Further investigation and testing revealed the presence of peanut allergen in LOT # 091617PAHU05PS and LOT# 091717PAHU05PS Customers who have purchased the above described product are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Customers with questions may contact the company at: 1-732-499-9070 Monday through Friday between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM EST. SUNBURY COMMUNITY: Data Breach Class Actions Combined ----------------------------------------------------- Justin Strawser, writing for The Daily Item, reports that a class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the parent company of Sunbury Community Hospital over a massive data breach has been combined with four other class action lawsuits across the nation. Sarah S. Vance, the chair of the Panel of Multidistrict Litigation, issued the order on Feb. 4 that sends the lawsuit filed Aug. 29 by former patient Susan Roman, of Lackawanna County, to the Northern District of Alabama to be combined with lawsuits filed in the Southern District of Mississippi, the District of New Mexico and the Southern District of West Virginia. Sunbury Community Hospital falls under the jurisdiction of the Middle District. The Tennessee-based Community Health Systems notified the U.S. Securities and Exchanged Commission on Aug. 18 that the breach led to the theft of information of 4.5 million patients across the United States. The organization has 206 hospitals in 28 states. Both moving plaintiffs and all responding parties support the selection of the Northern District of Alabama due to the "convenience of the parties and witnesses" and promotion of "just and efficient conduct of this litigation," Ms. Vance wrote in her opinion. "Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pre-trial rulings on class certification and another issues, and converse the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary," she wrote. U.S. Judge Karon O. Bowdre, who was assigned the litigation, is "an experienced jurist, and we are confident that she will steer the proceedings on a prudent course," Ms. Vance wrote. The panel of six consists of Vance, Marjorie O. Rendell, Ellen Segal Huvelle, Catherine D. Perry, Charles R. Breyer and R. David Proctor. In the court documents, Ms. Roman accused the health care organization of violating the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, a breach of express contract, a breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. She demands a jury trial to award injunctive and other equitable relief, damages and restitution in excess of $5 million and attorney fees. Community Health officials believe Chinese hackers in April and June were the ones to collect names, addresses, birth dates, telephone numbers and Social Security numbers of 4.5 million individuals who were referred for or received services affiliated with the company in the past five years. According to a report by Reuters, the hackers broke into the company's computer system by exploiting the "Heartbleed" Internet bug in equipment made by Juniper Networks Inc, making it the first known large-scale cyber attack to use the flaw. SYNGENTA CORP: "Hayden" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Hayden v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00020, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02604-JWL- JPO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md- 02591-JWL-JPO. The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait, known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. The Plaintiffs are corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC. 601 Washington Street Paducah, KY 42002-1876 Telephone: (270) 442-1422 E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com - and - Thomas V. Bender, Esq. WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C. 2500 City Center Square 1100 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-6620 Facsimile: (816) 421-4747 E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Mindy M. Pava, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 1700 K St. N.W. Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com mpava@hausfeldllp.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 Facsimile: (312) 214-0001 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com earonowitz@gelaw.com TAKATA CORP: "Ahmadi" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Ahmadi d/b/a Southeast Enterprises, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14- cv-01001, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20671-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: "Back" Class Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Back v. TK Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:14-cv-01388, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20679-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: "Horton" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Horton, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04433, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20662- FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: "Meiser" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Meiser, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00298, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15- cv-20676-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: "Rosenstock" Suit Included in Airbag Products MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Rosenstock v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07004, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20660-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: Two Suits From M.D. Florida Included in Airbag MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- Two class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The lawsuits are: (1) Rickert, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01420. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20673-FAM to the proceeding; and (2) Day v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01427. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20674-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: "Zamora" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Zamora, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02618, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15- cv-20643-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 L. Street, NW, Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com TAKATA CORP: 10 Suits From C.D. California Included in Airbag MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ten class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The lawsuits are: -- Luke Hooper, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08565. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20645-FAM to the proceeding; -- Lauryn Sanchez, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08727. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20648-FAM to the proceeding; -- Julie Mi Ok Nam, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09127. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20652-FAM to the proceeding; -- Donna Bader v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00026. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20647-FAM to the proceeding; -- Melissa Teisl, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09357. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20657-FAM to the proceeding; -- Michael McLeod, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09037. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20650-FAM to the proceeding; -- Richard Klinger, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08677. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20646-FAM to the proceeding. -- Kathryn Commiciotto, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09065. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20651-FAM to the proceeding; -- Jina Bae, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02346. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20659-FAM to the proceeding; and -- Howard Singer, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09562. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20658-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: Four Suits From S.D. New York Included in Airbag MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Four class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The lawsuits are: -- Lawrence, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-08963. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20667-FAM to the proceeding; -- Alexander, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09396. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20668-FAM to the proceeding; -- Cioffi v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-08920. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20669-FAM to the proceeding; and -- Dunleavy v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-09459. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20670-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: "Gerhart" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Gerhart, et al. v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01562, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15- cv-20661-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Ruben Honik, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com rhonik@golombhonik.com kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com TAKATA CORP: Two Suits From New Jersey Consolidated in Airbag MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Two class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The lawsuits are: -- Fishman v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-07244. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20677-FAM to the proceeding; and -- Bourne v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-07227. The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20678-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuits are included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: Honda Rules Out Financial Support Amid Airbag Woes --------------------------------------------------------------- Yoko Kubota, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Honda Motor Co. isn't interested in offering financial support to Takata Corp., the Japanese auto maker's chief executive officer said, dismissing speculation that his company would take the lead in assisting the embattled air bag maker. "We have no interest" in financially supporting Takata, Takanobu Ito told reporters on Feb. 13 on the sidelines of a test-driving event in Asahikawa, northern Japan. "Takata itself needs to figure out how to fulfill its duties, but if it makes any request to auto makers, then we would think about that." The CEO added that many auto makers would be in serious trouble if Takata stops supplying replacement air bag inflaters for recalled vehicles that are at risk of exploding and shooting out shrapnel, a problem linked to at least five deaths, all in Honda cars. Takata faces growing costs to replace parts in recalled cars. In the future, it could also be hit with fines or settlement fees and it risks losing future business if auto makers shift component orders to rival suppliers. In the case of Toyota Motor Corp., which went through a safety crisis starting in 2009 involving complaints of unintended acceleration in some of its vehicles, the auto maker recalled more than 10 million vehicles in the U.S. It also faced a class-action suit and a criminal investigation that the company paid $1.2 billion to settle. Since late 2008, more than 10 auto makers have recalled around 25 million vehicles over Takata-made air bags. Recalls by Honda account for more than half of those vehicles. As of end-September, Takata had 86.5 billion ($728 million) in cash or cash equivalents, not much changed from a year earlier and analysts aren't concerned about short term financial troubles. Honda has already stopped relying solely on Takata for parts to replace inflaters in recalled vehicles, and has begun working with Takata rivals Autoliv and Daicel Corp. Mr. Ito said Honda is focused on three areas in dealing with the air bag problem: probing factors that may be causing inflater explosions, actively implementing recalls where needed and improving inflater replacement rates for vehicles it has recalled already. TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Abdelgadir" Suit Included in Securities MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Abdelgadir, et al. v. Telexelectric, L.L.L.P., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09857, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Worcester). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-40028-TSH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In Re: TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL No. 4:14-md-02566- TSH, currently pending in Massachusetts. The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to the allegation that the TelexFree companies operated a Ponzi pyramid scheme involving the recruitment of investors in marketing TelexFree's telephone service plan and that the Defendants directly participated in or aided and abetted the alleged scheme. The Plaintiffs are represented by: William R. Baldiga, Esq. Kiersten A. Taylor, Esq. BROWN RUDNICK LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (617) 856-8200 Facsimile: (617) 856-8201 E-mail: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com ktaylor@brownrudnick.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE, LLC 193 Plummer Hill Road Belmont, NH 03220 Telephone: (781) 856-7650 E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us - and - Ronald A. Dardeno, Esq. Alexander D. Wall, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANK N. DARDENO 424 Broadway Somerville, MA 02145 Telephone: (617) 666-2600 E-mail: rdardeno@dardeno.com - and - Evans J. Carter, Esq. EVANS J. CARTER, P.C. 860 Worcester Road, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 812 Framingham, MA 01701 Telephone: (508) 875-1669 E-mail: ejcatty1@verizon.net - and - D. Michael Noonan, Esq. SHAHEEN AND GORDON 140 Washington Street P.O. Box 977 Dover, NH 03821 Telephone: (603) 871-4144 E-mail: mnoonan@shaheengordon.com - and - R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 E-mail: rick@saveri.com - and - Ronald P. Passatempo, Esq. RONALD P. PASSATEMPO LAW OFFICES 200 Broadway Lynnfield, MA 01940 Telephone: (781) 596-3100 E-mail: passatempolaw@comcast.net - and - Randall Renick, Esq. HADSELL STORMER RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 381-9261 E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com - and - Adriana Contartese, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ADRIANA CONTARTESE OCN Document Prepetition, Suite 926 19W Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (617) 268-3557 E-mail: adriana911@juno.com - and - Ihuoma Igboanugo, Esq. THE CRESCENT LAW PRACTICE 183 Wind Chime Court, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 341-9707 E-mail: ihuoma2007@yahoo.com - and - Mark A. Tate, Esq. TATE LAW GROUP, LLC 2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600 P.O. Box 9060 Savannah, GA 31412 Telephone: (912) 234-3030 E-mail: marktate@tatelawgroup.com - and - Stephen M. Smith, Esq. BRAIN INJURY LAW CENTER 2100 Kecoughtan Road Hampton, VA 23661 Telephone: (877) 840-3431 E-mail: ssmith@braininjurylawcenter.com TIPTREE FINANCIAL: Fortegra Settles Stein and Hickey Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Tiptree Financial Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that Fortegra Financial Corporation and attorneys for both Stein and Hickey executed a memorandum of understanding that provides for a settlement of the Stein and Hickey class actions. On August 18, 2014, a purported class action, entitled Stein v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-2014-CA- 005825-XXXX-MA, was filed against the Company, the members of its Board of Directors, Parent, Holdings and Merger Sub in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, State of Florida (the "Florida Court"). On September 18, 2014, an amended complaint was filed against the same parties. The amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all the Company's stockholders (excluding the defendants and their affiliates). The amended complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate, that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary obligations to the Company's stockholders by approving the Merger Agreement and related agreements, engaging in an unfair sales process and failing to make adequate disclosures to the Company's stockholders, and that the other named defendants aided and abetted the breach of those duties. The amended complaint seeks various forms of relief, including injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent or delay the completion of the Merger and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On September 15, 2014, a purported class action, entitled Hickey v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-2014-CA- 006485-XXXX-MA, was filed against the Company in the Florida Court containing substantially the same allegations as the Stein case. On October 24, 2014, the Florida Court consolidated the Stein and Hickey actions. On October 13, 2014, the Company and attorneys for both Stein and Hickey executed a memorandum of understanding that provides for a settlement. The terms of the memorandum of understanding did not require any change to the merger agreement, but did require the Company to provide stockholders with supplemental disclosures about the merger, which the Company completed. Before the settlement is finalized it must be approved by the Florida Court. TIPTREE FINANCIAL: No Hearings, Trials Set in "Mullins" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Tiptree Financial Inc. said in its Form 8-K/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2015, that Fortegra Financial Corporation is currently a defendant in Mullins v. Southern Financial Life Insurance Co., which was filed on February 2, 2006, in the Pike Circuit Court, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. A class was certified on June 25, 2010. At issue is the duration or term of coverage under certain policies. The action alleges violations of the Consumer Protection Act and certain insurance statutes, as well as common law fraud. The action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and interest. The parties are currently involved in the merits discovery phase and discovery disputes have arisen. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Sanctions on April 5, 2012 in connection with the Company's efforts to locate and gather certificates and other documents from the Company's agents. While the court did not award sanctions, it did order the Company to subpoena certain records from its agents. In an effort to prevent the trial court from enforcing the order, the Company filed a Writ of Prohibition, which the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied on August 31, 2012. In response, the Company filed a motion for discretionary review of the Writ of Prohibition. The Company also filed a direct appeal of the same order, on the grounds that the order could be construed as a finding of contempt on the part of the Company. The Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal on September 13, 2013, which prompted the Company to file a motion for discretionary review of the direct appeal. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied the Writ of Prohibition on November 21, 2013, and subsequently denied the direct appeal in April 2014. No hearings are currently scheduled and no trial date has been set. U.S. BANK: N.D. Cal. Judge Decertifies Class in "Trahan" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California granted defendant's motion to decertify the plaintiff class in the case JERRY TRAHAN, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, NO. C 09-03111 JSW (N.D. Cal.) Jerry Trahan originally filed the case in Alameda County Superior Court in 2009, as a continuation of Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association. In the Duran case, the plaintiffs, a group of Business Banking Officers ("BBO"), alleged that U.S. Bank misclassified them as exempt employees under California Labor Code section 1171. After a trial, U.S. Bank was found to have misclassified the BBO position as an exempt position. However, the California Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the Court of Appeal's decisions to vacate the judgment against U.S. Bank and to decertify the class. In his case, Trahan alleges that, notwithstanding the judgment in Duran, now vacated, U.S. Bank continues to misclassify the BBO position as a non-exempt position. Trahan further alleges that he and the class members were regularly scheduled as a matter of uniform company policy to work and in fact worked as salaried bank employees in excess of eight hours per workday and/or in excess of forty hours per workweek without receiving straight time or overtime compensation for such overtime hours. Judge White granted defendant's motion to decertify the class as he observed that Trahan has not met his burden to show that the predominance and superiority prongs of Rule 23 are satisfied. The Court scheduled a status conference in the case for Feb. 20. 2015. A copy of Judge White's order dated January 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/M3HENZfrom Leagle.com. Jerry Trahan, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Joseph Wynne -- ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- John Eastman B. Pickett -- Wynne Law Firm U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by Alison Le Tsao -- atsao@cdflaborlaw.com -- Connor Joseph Moyle -- cmoyle@cdflaborlaw.com -- Kent Joseph Sprinkle -- ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com -- tghali@cdflaborlaw.com -- Timothy M. Freudenberger -- tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com -- at Carlton, DiSante & Freudenberger LLP UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Recalls Breyers(R) Salted Caramel Swirl --------------------------------------------------------------- Unilever United States, Inc. is voluntarily recalling a limited number of tubs of Breyers(R) No Sugar Added Salted Caramel Swirl because they may inadvertently contain almonds, which are not listed as an ingredient on the label. Persons who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to almond run the risk of a serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The affected product was distributed in 1.5-quart (1.41L) paperboard tubs marked with a unit UPC of 7756738393, with a best before date of NOV2915GB, located on the bottom of the tub. No other best before dates are affected. The product was distributed nationwide to limited retailers and reached consumers through retail stores. No product was shipped outside the U.S. No Breyers(R) brand gelato, ice cream, or other frozen dairy dessert products are affected by this limited voluntary recall. No allergic reactions have been reported to date. The company initiated the recall as a result of a consumer complaint. Consumers who have purchased boxes of the above product with the affected UPC and best before date are asked to immediately discontinue use of the product, retain the outer box and call 877- 270-7402, which is operational 24 hours a day seven days a week, to request a replacement coupon. This limited voluntary recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. The company is placing a notification on the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) website www.foodallergy.org. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434541.htm. VEMMA NUTRITION: "Horanzy" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Horanzy v. Vemma Nutrition Company, et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-1296-DNH-TWD, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The Arizona District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00298-JJT to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER PA 888 7th Ave. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER PA 1990 N California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Edward R. Conan, Esq. Lucy S. Clippinger, Esq. BOND SCHOENECK & KING PLLC 1 Lincoln Ctr., Suite 1800 Syracuse, NY 13202-1355 Telephone: (315) 218-8000 Facsimile: (315) 218-8100 E-mail: econan@bsk.com lsclippinger@bsk.com - and - Keith Beauchamp, Esq. Kent S. Brockelman, Esq. Shelley Tolman, Esq. COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC 2800 N Central Ave., Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 224-0999 Facsimile: (602) 224-6020 E-mail: kbeauchamp@cblawyers.com kbrockelman@cblawyers.com stolman@cblawyers.com WELLS FARGO: "Vasquez" Suit Goes to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of California ruled on the parties' motions in the case JOSE VASQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-04868-JCS (N.D. Cal.) Jose Vasqquez was a former employee of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a national banking association with its main office located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid commissions from Wells Fargo, which were allegedly withheld from Vasquez when he was involuntarily terminated, purportedly for misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that at the time of his termination he was owed over $67,000 in commissions. In bringing an individual action, Vasquez opted out of a putative class action pending in San Francisco Superior Court brought through Cesar Ascarrunz, on behalf of all California Home Mortgage Consultants who were not paid commission wages by virtue of having their employment involuntarily terminated, purportedly for alleged misconduct by Wells Fargo. In the Complaint, Vasquez asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code and California common law. Wells Fargo removed the action to the Northern District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint and a motion for Remand for Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction. Defendant, on the other hand, brought a motion to Transfer Venue. Magistrate Judge Spero denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and remand motion; and granted defendant's transfer motion. The action is transferred to the Central District of California. A copy of Magistrate Judge Spero's order dated January 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/jm4pBUfrom Leagle.com. Jose Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Paul Rumberger -- tim@rumbergerlaw.com -- at Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Defendant, represented by Thomas Roy Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Danielle Leah Levine -- dlevine@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP WHITEWAVE FOODS: Recalls Cheddar Sandwich Crackers Due to Peanuts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Broomfield, Colo.-based. WhiteWave Foods is voluntarily recalling 7.5 oz packages of Horizon Cheddar Sandwich Crackers because they may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. No illnesses have been reported to date. We believe fewer than 62,160 boxes of product have been shipped to retailers and wholesalers in the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The recall is taking place due to an inadvertent packaging error. The outer package is labeled as a cheddar sandwich cracker and the inner package contains the peanut butter sandwich crackers. WhiteWave's sales team is working with distributors to actively recover any impacted product remaining on store shelves, and the Company has implemented measures to prevent this from happening in the future. HOW TO IDENTIFY THE RECALLED PRODUCT Consumers should check the top of the individual box and look for a "best before" date of 17 May 2015, and check the bottom of the box for a Universal Product Code (UPC) of 42365 00464. This is the only product involved in the recall. Product safety and consumer confidence is of utmost importance to WhiteWave. Consumers who purchased the product may return it to the place of purchase for a full refund or exchange. Consumers with questions can contact the Company at 1-866-663-4349 during extended business hours on February 20, until 10 p.m. central time. On February 21-22, consumers with questions can contact the Company from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. central time Monday-Friday. The call center will resume normal business hours as of February 23 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. central time). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been notified of this recall, and we are coordinating our communication efforts with the organization Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE). Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm435173.htm WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches ----------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market is recalling "Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches" sold at the Glastonbury, Connecticut location due to an undeclared peanut allergen. The product was sold in the Glastonbury store through February 11, 2015 and includes any Divine Treasures 1000000 Smooches with "Sell By" dates through May 6, 2015. The vegan chocolate candy labeled as "Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches" contained peanuts, a known allergen, which is not declared due to incomplete wording on the label. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all affected product has been removed from shelves. One allergic reaction has been reported. Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market Glastonbury may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call 617-492-5500 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434482.htm. WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Cakes Due to Undeclared Eggs ----------------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market is recalling chocolate cake for two produced and sold in retail stores in the Southwest Region, which includes TX, OK, LA, AR, due to undeclared egg. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The product was sold as whole cakes packaged in clear plastic containers, UPC code 24635700000 with best by dates of 2/3/15 to 2/18/15. The chocolate cake for two contains egg as an ingredient, which was not declared on the label. Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all affected product has been removed from shelves. The error was discovered during routine product review. No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date. Consumers who have purchased this product from any Whole Foods Market Southwest stores in TX, OK, LA, and AR may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store between the hours of 9am and 5pm CST any day of the week. Customers may find their nearest Whole Foods Market at www.wholefoodsmarket.com Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434431.htm WINNETKA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee ------------------------------------------------------------ Karen Ann Cullotta, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a North Shore man has filed a lawsuit against the village of Winnetka, claiming local property owners should not be forced to pay a utility fee to support a proposed $34 million Willow Road stormwater tunnel. The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 13 by Winnetka resident Mark Green in Cook County Chancery Court, calls the utility fee "a disguised property tax" and says it is an "improper use of Winnetka's taxing authority." Although Mr. Green is the only plaintiff named in the suit, his attorney, Todd McLawhorn, said the litigation is "on behalf of all those in Winnetka who own property that has been assessed by the stormwater fee" and seeks class-action status. According to the complaint, building the stormwater tunnel "must be funded via a property tax" because the project would be a "capital (improvement) . . . for the community as a whole." The suit says the village "circumvented this process" by charging "residents a user fee based upon the non-permeable area of their respective properties, rather than following the procedures necessary for a property tax increase." "The issue here is power run amok," Mr. Green said. "The village has invented a new way of extracting money from me, but they already have a way of doing that, and it's called 'taxing.' I don't mind the extra dollars coming from me if they do it through the proper channels." Officials with the village said they would "continue to thoroughly review the complaint" but believe the fee is legal "and that the village council properly exercised its authority," Peter Friedman, an attorney for the village of Winnetka, said in a statement. The stormwater utility fee was launched last year in Winnetka to pay for the village's proposed $41 million stormwater management project, the centerpiece of which would be the $34 million Willow Road tunnel. Winnetka officials have said the new fee, which includes roughly 4,300 accounts, will cost residents about $260 each the first year, topping out at roughly $360 annually after all the bonds needed to fund the project are issued. The village's stormwater utility fee bills residents, commercial properties, public and private schools, and nonprofit organizations such as churches and social service agencies. The village calculates its utility fee payment based on the amount of impervious surface on a property: in other words, areas that do not absorb rainfall, including building foundations, patios, sidewalks and driveways, all of which contribute to stormwater runoff that burdens the sewer system. Officials said the decision to pay for the stormwater project by creating a villagewide utility fee was prompted by a recommendation from the Maryland-based Municipal and Financial Services Group, a village consultant. Among the consultant's recommendations was that the stormwater fees be placed on the village water bill -- albeit as a different line item -- which is billed every other month. Some residents have criticized the village for creating the stormwater utility fee, as well as for borrowing $16.5 million to start construction of the proposed Willow Road tunnel, despite roughly 54 percent of voters opposing the plan in a nonbinding advisory referendum in March 2014. XEROX CORP: Class Action Over Customer Service Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Renee Schiavone, writing for Patch, reports that the mismanaged rollout of an all-electronic toll collection system on the Golden Gate Bridge has prompted the Bay Area Toll Authority to withhold $330,000 in penalties against its customer service contractor, a Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission spokesman said. Xerox has provided mailing and call center services for toll collections at all area bridges since 2003. However, the company's level of service dropped off sharply after all- electronic tolling was implemented on the Golden Gate Bridge in March 2013, according to a toll authority report. The new tolling system requires drivers to either pay with the FasTrak system or pay through an invoice sent to the registered owner of the car. Late fees are incurred if that invoice goes unpaid for 21 days. While Xerox had made improvements since the initial rollout, the introduction of a new computer system when the company's new five-year $117 million contract started in November led to another steep rise in call wait times for customers dealing with bridge tolls. Other problems included 16,000 late payment invoices mailed in late 2014 to customers who had not yet been mailed notices for the toll itself, MTC spokesman John Goodwin said on Feb. 11. The toll authority is working to contact those customers and will not hold them responsible for late penalties relating to the error, Mr. Goodwin said. In an effort to fix the problems, the toll authority has contracted with Oakland-based firm Ted Jacob Engineering Group to provide metrics and technical assistance for improving the call center. The Jacobs contract was amended for that work until June 30 using $250,000 in penalties withheld from Xerox's $1.7 million November invoice at the toll authority's meeting on Feb. 11. Transportation Commissioner Steve Kinsey, vice president of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, called the service at Xerox's calling center "atrocious" at the Feb. 11 meeting, expressing frustration that the toll authority was continuing to have to manage the call center, despite hiring Xerox for the task. Metrics from a toll authority report show prompt answering of calls plummeted after the rollout of the electronic-only toll system on the Golden Gate Bridge, falling until only about 10 percent of calls were answered within two minutes. While performance then improved, it again dropped sharply last summer, when fewer than 20 percent of calls were answered within two minutes. Average wait times at the call center rose to their worst ever after Xerox's new contract began in November and new computer systems were implemented. Callers have waited an average of over 8 minutes since then. The continuing problems with Xerox's customer service prompted a class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court last year. An amended complaint filed in December alleges that numerous drivers did not receive toll notices before being mailed penalty invoices. In the first four months of the all-electronic tolling system, Xerox and the toll authority issued 290,489 toll evasion penalties, collecting nearly $3 million, the complaint alleges. The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District estimates it can collect up to $22 million in revenue a year from toll evasions, according to the complaint. The complaint also alleges that Xerox does not provide a proper procedure to contest charges, that Xerox employees improperly identify themselves as "toll violation officers" and the company does not have adequate means to send invoices to drivers' current addresses. Mr. Goodwin said the toll authority obtains addresses from the DMV registration database, but does not have access to its driver's license database, which may be more up-to-date. Xerox has submitted a plan to get its operations back into compliance with its contract by March, according to the toll authority. "We're not in the business of penalizing contractors, we're in the business of processing toll payments," Mr. Goodwin said. "All we're trying to do is get the toll collection done as smoothly and efficiently as possible and provide the greatest possible customer service, and we're falling short of that goal." ********* 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 * * *