/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150330.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 63 Headlines 76 CARRIAGE: Faces "McLean" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime 94 CHRISTOPHER: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ABC CORP: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ALL AROUND: Faces "Mahon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces "Hinely" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AT&T MOBILITY: Says FTC Can't Sue Over Throttling AVON PRODUCTS: Imprudently Manages Plan's Investment, Suit Says BASIC RESEARCH: Settles Deceptive Advertising Class Action BLACKBERRY LTD: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action BNY MELLON: Settles Suits Over Currency Transactions CARGOLUX INTERNATIONAL: Deutsche Bahn Settles Antitrust Suit CARPENTER CO: Price-Fixing Class Action Can Proceed CATAMARAN HEALTH: Faces "Imes" Suit Over Illegal Insurance CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Judge Withdraws Temporary Restraining Order COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces "Muse" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT COOPER VISION: Faces "Hewitt" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens CORPORATE RESOURCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action DBTG14 LTD: Faces "Cortes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DELILAH'S DEN: Dancer Joins Minimum Wage Class Action DIRECTV: FTC Files False Advertising Suit in California DIRECTV: Court to Hear Appeal in Termination Fees Class Action EASTERN ARMORED: Truckers Obtain Favorable Ruling in FLSA Suit ESTES HEATING: "Elery" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime EXXON MOBIL: Judge Dismisses Mayflower Oil Spill Class Action FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Automated Text Messages FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Illegally Records Calls, Action Claims FORT COLLINS, CO: Judge Vacates Hearing in Panhandling Suit FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Pleads Guilty to Spill-Related Charges FT MEAT: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gilman Law Pursues Securities Class Action GENERAL MOTORS: CEO to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Suits GENERAL MOTORS: Documents Reveal Ignition Switch Problem Cover-Up GOLDMAN SACHS: Magistrate Judge Rejects Gender Bias Class Action GREEN BROOK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Broking" Suit Claims HAD INC: "Hannah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages HAMILTON SCIENTIFIC: Sued Over Illegal Termination Policies HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses Pyramid-Scheme Suit HESKA CORPORATION: Faces "Fauley" Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge OKs Autonomy Shareholder Settlement IBM CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Securities Fraud IL MULINO: "Hawes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages INTER-CON SECURITY: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says JANI-KING: Franchisees Can Proceed With Class Action JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Conn. Law Firms File Xarelto Suits JM MATTRESS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims JOHNS HOPKINS: Nikita Levy Settlement Class Action Appeal Tossed JSV ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime KAHALA CORP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Advertisements, Suit Claims LENOVO US: Faces "Behren" Suit Over Harmful Spyware LENOVO US: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Harmful Spyware LEWIS ENERGY: Faces "Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LOS TAQUITOS: Faces "Olvera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ashley" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Kleinsasser" Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Sahn" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Vickery" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "White" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Parnella" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Laminate Formaldehyde LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Bank May Not Be Added as Defendant in Suit LYFT INC: Sued in Cal. Over Delayed Background Check Policies MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff's Contempt May Spur Victim Payouts MDHEARINGAID INC: Illegally Records Calls, "Byrd" Suit Claims MEE CHI: "Mao" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages MERCK & CO: Claims Process Litigation Underway in NuvaRing Case MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Denies Stay in "Naked" Short Sales Suit MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Faces "Retta" Suit Over Product Misbranding NAPER GOLD: Faces "Huerta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NAT'L FOOTBALL: Jury Awards $75,000 to Ticketholder Plaintiffs NESTLE PURINA: Faces "Malcom" Class Action Over Beneful Pet Food NESTLE PURINA: Parallel Litigation at Issue in "Adkins" NESTLE PURINA: Says Beneful Pet Dog Class Action Baseless NOMAC DRILLING: "Norrell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GTX 970, "Palagno" Suit Says OMNICARE INC: High Court Limits Suits Over Misleading Statements OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports PHILADELPHIA, PA: Efforts to Settle Suit Over Forfeiture Laws Fail RATP: Paris Commuters Mull Class Action Over Transport System RAWLINGS COMPANY: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in ERISA Suit RAYONIER INC: Investors' Suits Consolidated Into Class Action REDFLEX: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Red-Light Camera Suit RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages ROYAL CANIN: Faces "Fauley" Suit Over Unsolicited Facsimiles SAKS FIFTH: Faces Class Action Over Restrictive Return Policy SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Class Action Over Wickham Collapse May Expand SEARS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Dismissal SIEMENS: Faces Suit in Brazil Over Alleged in Price-Fixing SILVERBRICK GROUP: Faces "Byers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SONY PICTURES: Former Employees File Amended Class Action STEWART'S SHOPS: Class Action Over Unpaid Wages Moves Forward SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Illegally Records Calls, "Gu" Suit Claims T & S ROOFING: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime TAKATA CORP: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Defective Airbags TARGET CORP: Judge Approves $10MM Data Breach Settlement TCWD LIDO: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TEXCALE INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TIFFANY'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Actions Over Guardrail System TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail System Meets Safety Standards UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Antman Suit Over Alleged Data Breach UNITED RECOVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages VECTREN CORPORATION: Sued Over Retirement Medical Benefits WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Pomegranate Juice Mislabeling * Class Actions Over Herbal Supplements Fraud Pile Up * FCRA Class Actions Against Employers Prevalent * Securities Class Actions Against Life-Science Companies Double * Oregon Votes for Bill to Change Handling of Class Action Funds ********* 76 CARRIAGE: Faces "McLean" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- David McLean, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 76 Carriage Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01274 (E.D. Pa., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. 76 Carriage Company, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, which is a provider of Sightseeing Tours and Specialty Transportation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com 94 CHRISTOPHER: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Vilchis Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 94 Christopher Inc. d/b/a Havana Alma De Cuba, Louis Skibar, Gerardo Tlapa and Beatriz Dearmas, Case No. 1:15-cv-01822 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 94 Christopher Street, New York, New York, 10014. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 Facsimile: (212) 308-8582 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com ABC CORP: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Qu Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Wang's Kitchen, Wang Chen, Jane (first name unknown) Zheng, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" #1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-00372 (D. Conn., March 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, other wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Wang's Kitchen restaurant located at 251 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8388 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com ALL AROUND: Faces "Mahon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Mahon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. All Around Transportation, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-00180 (S.D. Ohio, March 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. All Around Transportation, Inc. maintained its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio and provides transportation services to customers throughout the Greater Cincinnati, Ohio area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Francis Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 17410 Dorchester Dr. Cleveland, OH 44119 Telephone: (216) 650-3318 Facsimile: (216) 664-2663 E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces "Hinely" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tammie Hinely and Jesus Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00519 (D. Colo., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. American Family Mutual Insurance Company provides insurance coverage to residents throughout the state of Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen Beth O'Connor, Esq. BACHUS & SCHANKER, LLC 1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 893-9800 Facsimile: (303) 893-9900 E-mail: karen.oconnor@coloradolaw.net AT&T MOBILITY: Says FTC Can't Sue Over Throttling ------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that as the Federal Communications Commission released long-awaited rules for broadband Internet service on March 12, lawyers for AT&T Mobility LLC asked a federal judge to toss a lawsuit brought by a separate federal agency last year claiming AT&T misled some smartphone customers with unlimited-data plans. AT&T's lawyers at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel and Sidley Austin argued on March 12 that the company's status as a "common carrier" under purview of the FCC shields it from Federal Trade Commission enforcement actions. The FTC sued AT&T in October in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California claiming that the company failed to adequately disclose to unlimited-data customers that it would cut speeds for those who reached certain use thresholds. The practice, known as throttling in the mobile industry, led to problems with basic smartphone activities such as web browsing, GPS navigation and streaming video, the FTC claims. During arguments before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on March 12, Kellogg Huber's Michael Kellogg -- mkellogg@khhte.com -- said the FTC couldn't point to "a single case in which the FTC has successfully asserted jurisdiction over a common carrier" in the past 100 years. Kellogg said the FCC rules issued on March 12 remove any doubt that mobile data services fall within its role as a common carrier, making AT&T's mobile Internet service exempt from FTC enforcement. The FTC's Evan Rose said that the term common carrier applies to activity rather than entities. "AT&T is not a common carrier when it's providing service that's not subject to the Communications Act," Ms. Rose said. Ms. Rose pointed in particular to the company's sale of giftcards as a service that would fall outside the common-carrier activity regulated by the FCC. Even though Ms. Rose conceded that FTC won't be bringing enforcement actions related to broadband Internet service going forward, the agency didn't lose all authority to continue its lawsuit the moment FCC's reclassification went into effect, he argued. If it did, he said, that would effectively immunize AT&T from any restitution and consumer benefits that can come from FTC enforcement for its prior unlawful behavior. Judge Chen did little to indicate which way he might rule during arguments, asking pointed questions of both sides. However, Judge Chen took note when Sidley's David Anderson -- dlanderson@sidley.com -- said the FCC has told AT&T that it intends to bring an enforcement action of its own related to the company's throttling practices. Said Judge Chen, "When it comes out, notify the court -- if I haven't already issued an order." AVON PRODUCTS: Imprudently Manages Plan's Investment, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen A. McCoy and Katherine C. Walker, on behalf of themselves and the Avon Personal Savings Account Plan, and/or alternatively on behalf of a class consisting of similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan v. Avon Products, Inc., Retirement Board, Plan Administrator, Investment Committee, Shalabh Gupta, Richard J. Valone, Michael Seay, and John Doe Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01828 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by failure to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's investment in Company stock. Avon Products, Inc. is engaged in manufacturing and marketing beauty and related products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Jason Klein, Esq. STULL STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com BASIC RESEARCH: Settles Deceptive Advertising Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a Salt Lake City-based company has agreed to pay refunds to consumers who purchased its weight- loss tablets to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed its advertising slogan, "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight," was deceptive. Under the proposed settlement, Basic Research will pay a refund of $25 per box after being sued by law firms on behalf of consumers who purchased the product called Akavar beginning in 2007. A Basic Research representative didn't respond to requests for comment. But the company has denied any wrongdoing and would still be able to use the slogan under the proposed agreement. Salt Lake City attorney Jon Harper, who represents consumers, told The Salt Lake Tribune that he couldn't comment other than to say the litigation was resolved "on terms satisfactory to the parties." In 2007, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Utah against Basic Research on behalf of consumers who bought Akavar based on the company's advertising. A second similar complaint was filed in state court in California in 2008. The two lawsuits, which were eventually consolidated into one action in federal court in Utah, said the company lacked a scientific basis for the weight-loss claims and was deceiving consumers. Akavar was sold by major retailers and marketed as a wonder pill in which consumers could "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight . . . (And we couldn't say it in print if it wasn't true!)" The company sold 60 capsules for $39.99 and two bottles for $79.98 with a third one for free, and sales brought in millions of dollars, according to court documents. In 2006, the Federal Trade Commission fined Basic Research $3 million and reached a settlement requiring the company to have a scientific basis for the claims of its products. The FTC and Basic Research sued each other in 2009 in federal court in Utah over whether the company was violating the 2006 deal. But last year, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups sided with Basic Research, noting two of four case studies done in 2001 suggested the herbal compounds in Akavar helped users to lose weight. His decision is cited in the proposed settlement of the class-action lawsuit, The Tribune reported. BLACKBERRY LTD: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that BlackBerry Ltd. may still be grasping at the heels of its smartphone competitors, but the company isn't having much trouble beating back securities class actions over its spotty performance. On March 13, U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan dismissed the latest investor lawsuit, handing a win to BlackBerry's defense team at Morrison & Foerster. The plaintiffs, represented by Kahn Swick & Foti, bought BlackBerry stock between March 2013 and September 2013, when the company was touting the prospects of its BlackBerry 10 line of devices. They alleged that they were duped into investing by the company's overly rosy statements, but Judge Griesa held that investors hadn't done enough to allege securities fraud and that BlackBerry's alleged misstatements amounted to "puffery." Although BlackBerry sounded an optimistic tone in some of its earnings releases, Judge Griesa wrote, the company wasn't out of line when it made certain statements about the BlackBerry 10 devices, including that the new line marked a transition point for the company. "While the complaint succeeds in showing that defendants put a positive gloss on the company's performance, it fails to show how that gloss amounted to fraud," Judge Griesa wrote. "These statements were so optimistic, and so lacking in tangible detail, that they would be immaterial from a reasonable investor's standpoint." The Feb. 13 decision isn't BlackBerry's only recent litigation victory over disgruntled investors. In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sided with the smartphone maker and its lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in a similar suit. The Second Circuit's ruling came in a proposed class action that dated back to 2011 and accused BlackBerry of misleading investors about the prospects of its Playbook tablet and overall financial performance. Morrison & Foerster's Dan Marmalefsky -- dmarmalefsky@mofo.com -- who represented BlackBerry in the case before Judge Griesa, wasn't immediately available to comment on March 16. Law.com also reached out to Kim Miller at Kahn Swick & Foti but didn't hear back. BNY MELLON: Settles Suits Over Currency Transactions ---------------------------------------------------- Michael Virtanen, writing for The Associated Press, reports that New York and federal authorities reached a $714 million settlement Thursday with Bank of New York Mellon in lawsuits alleging the bank fraudulently represented rates for client currency transactions for a decade. Lawsuits filed in 2011 said BNY Mellon misrepresented rates it would give in currency exchanges, providing clients nearly the worst rates of the trading day while promising the best, obtaining the best rates for itself and keeping the difference. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said their joint effort showed the bank misled customers and breached their trust. The bank has agreed to terminate certain executives involved, they said. "Investors count on financial institutions to tell them the truth about how their investments are being managed," Mr. Schneiderman said. "But Bank of New York Mellon misled customers and traded at their expense." Mr. Bharara said: "The bank, after three years of litigation, has finally admitted what was always clear from the evidence -- contrary to its various representations, including a claim of 'best rates,' the bank in fact gave clients prices at or near the worst interbank rates reported during the trading day. The bank repeatedly deceived its customers and is paying a heavy penalty for it." The bank said the agreement fully resolves lawsuits and enforcement proceedings concerning its standing instructions on foreign-exchange services for custodial clients before early 2012. "We are pleased to put these legacy FX matters behind us, which is in the best interest of our company and our constituents," the bank said in a prepared statement. "We continue to improve our product offerings to ensure they are meeting client demand and positioning clients to succeed in an increasingly complex financial environment." The investigation began with a 2009 whistleblower complaint. Clients included public pension funds and nonprofits. "The Bank was generally buying low from, and selling high to, its own clients," according to a statement of facts attached to the court settlement. "The bank recorded the difference or 'spread' between the rates it gave clients and the interbank market price at the time the . . . transactions were priced as 'sales margin.'" CARGOLUX INTERNATIONAL: Deutsche Bahn Settles Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Natalia Drozdiak, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that the cargo unit of German state railway Deutsche Bahn AG has reached a settlement with three airlines that colluded to inflate airfreight fees, increasing pressure on three other airlines still targeted by the U.S. lawsuit. Deutsche Bahn filed the lawsuit last August at a district court in New York, seeking a total of $370 million in damages from six airlines. The airlines had already pleaded guilty to conspiring on surcharges for fuel and security fees charged between 2000 and 2006. The lawsuit relates only to shipments to, from or within the U.S. The German company has settled claims in the U.S. with Cargolux International Airlines SA, Scandinavian airline SAS and Nippon Cargo Airlines for a total amount under $100 million, according to a person familiar with the matter. "We have been able to dismiss the claims against several airlines," said Deutsche Bahn management board member Gerd Becht. "Deutsche Bahn will continue to pursue our claims against other air carriers vigorously." The overall compensation sought by Deutsche Bahn in the suit remains the same and now pertains to a cargo unit of Air France- KLM SA,All Nippon Airways and Qantas Airways Ltd. Under U.S. law, if Deutsche Bahn wins the case, it could be awarded up to three times its claim, or about $1.1 billion, despite having settled with some of the airlines. The remaining airlines could also choose to settle but there haven't yet been talks between Deutsche Bahn and Air France-KLM, according to the person familiar with the matter. The three airlines still involved in the lawsuit didn't respond to requests for comment. The U.S. filing describes details of an industrywide effort to make a large portion of cargo airlines' costs not subject to traditional discounting negotiations with customers. The airlines also coordinated efforts to increase surcharges for fuel and security fees at a faster rate than the costs actually rose. In a parallel case filed at a German regional court, Deutsche Bahn and several other companies are seeking a total of EUR2 billion ($2.24 billion) plus around EUR1 billion in interest payments. Deutsche Bahn's own claims in the German case, which relates to shipments all over the world, stand around EUR1.2 billion and EUR560 million in interest payments. The lawsuits, first reported by The Wall Street Journal last year, initially targeted a total of 13 airlines including British Airways, a unit of International Consolidated Airlines Group SA, and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. The claims from the U.S. and German lawsuits come on top of other damages and fines the 13 carriers, along with almost 20 other airlines, have already had to pay because of the cartel. Antitrust regulators in the U.S., the European Union, Australia, South Korea and other countries fined them more than $3 billion between 2007 and 2013. The airlines have also already agreed to pay more than $1 billion in damage settlements in class-action and private lawsuits filed on behalf of shippers. Most of the airlines involved in the cartel have recognized they could be made accountable for potential claims and have set aside financial provisions. British Airways, for example, provisioned œ350 million ($539.6 million) in 2007 for litigation relating to the cartel. And in its 2013 annual report, Lufthansa acknowledged it and other cargo airlines were involved in a cartel between December 1999 and February 2006, adding the airline was thus "at risk of civil claims for damages by customers." CARPENTER CO: Price-Fixing Class Action Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 allowed to move forward antitrust class action claims against various manufacturers of polyurethane foam that face accusations of price-fixing. Without comment, the court said it would not hear a case filed by manufacturers that objected to a September 2014 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals favoring plaintiffs suing the companies. The appeals court refused to review a district judge's decision to certify the class of plaintiffs, which allowed the claims to proceed. The manufacturers include Carpenter Co, Foamex Innovations Inc and Woodbridge Foam Corp. The plaintiffs are companies that make products using foam and indirect purchasers who later bought products containing the foam. They say the manufacturers conspired to fix prices. The case is Carpenter Co. v. Ace Foam Inc, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-577. CATAMARAN HEALTH: Faces "Imes" Suit Over Illegal Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------- James Imes and Emma Imes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, f/k/a Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc., f/k/a Healthextras, Inc., Stonebridge Life Insurance Company and Virginia Surety Company, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00101 (E.D.N.C., March 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' wrongful conduct of charging excessive premiums for disability insurance that were not approved and could never be approved by the North Carolina Department of Insurance under North Carolina law. The Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies that markets and sales of insurance products in North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karolina Viehe, Esq. Lane C. Siesky, Esq. SIESKY & VIEHE, PC 4424 Vogel Rd. Suite 305 Evansville, IN 47715 Telephone: (812) 402-7700 Facsimile: (812) 402-7744 E-mail: karolina@sieskylaw.com lane@sieskylaw.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Judge Withdraws Temporary Restraining Order -------------------------------------------------------------- Max Baker, writing for Star-Telegram, reports that an Oklahoma judge withdrew a temporary restraining order on March 3 against a Fort Worth attorney who was urging landowners to challenge the $119 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against Chesapeake Energy. State District Judge Jon Parsley lifted a measure that prevented McDonald from sending out mass mailers, buying newspaper ads or conducting public meetings where he says the settlement will pay plaintiffs little while attorneys get $48 million in fees. Judge Parsley was scheduled to hold a hearing on the matter on March 4 in his remote Oklahoma Panhandle courtroom in Beaver County. The attorneys who negotiated the settlement accused McDonald of conducting an "unethical solicitation campaign." McDonald had filed a lengthy response to Parsley's temporary restraining order, saying that it was improper and violated his First Amendment rights to free speech, among other things. "I maintained all along that I didn't do anything wrong in Oklahoma and Judge Parsley's order speaks for itself and says just that," McDonald said. "This is no surprise." Rex Sharp, the attorney who asked for the order, did not return phone calls seeking comment. But Parsley's order says the counsel in the case was withdrawing its motion for the temporary injunction and order. Judge Parsley is presiding over a lawsuit filed in 2010 that accused Chesapeake of underpaying oil and gas royalties by improperly deducting postproduction costs -- claims similar to those made by McDonald and other attorneys in North Texas. Classified as a class action by Judge Parsley in February 2013, the suit covers drilling going back to 2004 and claims by thousands of royalty owners involving possibly 10,000 wells. In January, Chesapeake agreed to settle for $119 million. Attorneys' fees of up to 40 percent would be paid from that total, which could leave about $71 million for the plaintiffs. Judge Parsley set a schedule under which notices describing the settlement would go out to plaintiffs and set an April 1 deadline for individuals to object to or opt out of the settlement. On April 17, Judge Parsley is set to hold a "settlement fairness hearing" for final arguments in the case. But before many of the plaintiffs had time to consider the settlement, McDonald began questioning it, saying it "stinks." He said the royalties were miscalculated by at least $1 billion. Sharp and others said McDonald's action caused "unnecessary" confusion. If the order had been left in place, McDonald would have been shut down in his attempts to take on Chesapeake in its home state. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces "Muse" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------- Berkeley Muse, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Computer Sciences Corporation, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00323 (E.D. Va., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Computer Sciences Corporation owns and operates an IT services and solutions company with its principal place of business in Falls Church, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC. 836 Bonifant St Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com COOPER VISION: Faces "Hewitt" Suit Over Resale Price of Lens ------------------------------------------------------------ Benjamin W. Hewitt, Gabrielle Pavelko and John Weissman on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Cooper Vision, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15- cv-01196 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet- based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq. Shiho Yamamoto, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com sy@pritzkerlevine.com - and - Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Elizabeth Tran, Esq. Joyce Chang, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com swilliams@cpmlegal.com etran@cpmlegal.com jchang@cpmlegal.com CORPORATE RESOURCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights firm, on March 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Corporate Resource Services, Inc. common stock between July 1, 2014 and February 6, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Corporate Resource Services investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Corporate Resource Services class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-518.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, Corporate Resource Services issued materially false and misleading statements to investors by failing to disclose that its co-employer, Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., had a material unpaid federal payroll tax liability, which would adversely impact the Company and the Company was not in compliance with the Account Purchase Agreements with Wells Fargo as of November 30, 2014. When the truth was revealed to investors, the price of Corporate Resource Services common stock dropped, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 1, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-518.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. DBTG14 LTD: Faces "Cortes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Calep Cortes, Nasario Garcia Teran and Sebastian Guzman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DBTG14 Ltd. d/b/a Dirty Bird To Go and Joseph Ciriello, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01907 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a fried chicken restaurant located at 204 W. 14th Street, New York NY 10011. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com DELILAH'S DEN: Dancer Joins Minimum Wage Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Jane M. Von Bergen, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer, reported that Melody Schofield has joined a class action against Delilah's Den. Ms. Schofield is done with it. Done with private lap dances in the Champagne Room at Delilah's Den, where everyone knew her as Coco. Done with dancing half-naked on a bar stage. Done with paying to work -- as much as $85 for a "house fee," due to Delilah's management at the start of every shift. "I was tired of it," she said. "I felt like it was time to go." Except for one detail. She's not done with not getting paid, she said, and that's why Schofield, 26, of Philadelphia, has put her name on the top of a potential class-action lawsuit filed in Common Pleas Court against Delilah's Den. "I think it's really unfair that they weren't compensating us for our time," Ms. Schofield said. In filing the lawsuit, Ms. Schofield joins thousands of other erotic dancers around the nation who have filed wage and hour lawsuits and together have won millions of dollars in settlements. Ms. Schofield's attorney, Edward "Ted" Millstein, thinks the potential class in this case could consist of hundreds of Delilah's Den dancers. What drives these kinds of lawsuits "is a rising tide of consciousness of violations of the law," said Robert O'Brien, a Cherry Hill employment lawyer who represents workers. The increasing activism directed at Walmart and McDonald's, the nationwide drive to raise the minimum wage, the sick-pay debates, he said, are part of a "general movement in this country to fairness in the workplace." In her lawsuit, Ms. Schofield alleges that Delilah's Den violated state and federal labor laws because she wasn't paid minimum wage or overtime. Sometimes, she said, on a slow night, she'd work an entire shift - and after paying the house fee and tipping the disc jockey, the bouncer, and "house mom," who runs the dressing room, her wallet would be bare. She wasn't even getting the minimum wage. "The entertainers aren't on the payroll," said Delilah's Den's attorney, Stephen Howard, who hadn't seen the lawsuit and declined to comment on its specifics other than to confirm that Schofield had worked at the club near the Delaware River waterfront. "The entertainers pay a stage lease fee -- that's customary in the industry," he said. " The club owners argue that the dancers are independent contractors, in business for themselves, working for tips, and are free to dance elsewhere. The dancer plaintiffs disagree, saying they are employees, required, like most employees, to follow a dress (or maybe undress) code, wear certain types of outfits on certain days, and to show up for scheduled shifts -- even slow Sunday-night shifts. "I like to keep things simple," said Millstein, Schofield's Center City lawyer. "At the end of the day, the causes of action are the same" -- the failure to properly pay dancers. Ms. Schofield applied for a job at Delilah's Den in 2007, hoping to work as a cocktail waitress, something lucrative because the jobs she was piecing together weren't adding up to a living. Instead, she said, the managers suggested she dance, even though her only dance experience was as a school cheerleader in Boise, Idaho. "That was the first time I was in a club," she said. "Watching the others was how I learned." They sent her to the South Street Candy Barrel -- the unofficial uniform store for Delilah's, where the dancers could buy easy-exit gowns for about $120, plus designated red-and-green holiday outfits for Christmas, and gold-and-black outfits for the club's annual Entertainer of the Year of event. Wednesday was lingerie night. "At first, they made us work during the day," Ms. Schofield said, but later, she landed night shifts, earning lots of money in tips. "It was nice being young and supercomfortable," said Ms. Schofield, who left Delilah's in November and now works in a hair salon. "You just get used to it," she said about her work at Delilah's. "Anything you do over and over becomes second nature. You get treated a lot better by the customers there than you do in most customer-service jobs." At Delilah's, bouncers strictly watched patrons to make sure they kept their hands to themselves, even during a lap dance, even in the semiprivate Champagne Room. Both Ms. Schofield and Delilah's lawyer made the point that the clubs wanted to provide a pleasant experience for male patrons while avoiding prostitution, which would lead law enforcement to shut down the clubs. That's one tightrope, and the other in employment law is the "misclassification" issue over whether workers, be they dancers or FedEx drivers, are employees or independent contractors. The classification has implications, said New York lawyer Justin M. Swartz, who has represented "at least 2,000 dancers" at clubs such as Cheetah's Gentleman's Club & Restaurant in Times Square. "It's not a safe job, dancing on a stage and dealing with customers. If they get hurt, they have no workers' compensation insurance," he said. "It's a tough enough job if you are a dancer. You can make a good living, but many don't. They go to work just like anybody else." DIRECTV: FTC Files False Advertising Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that seeking refunds for millions of consumers, the Federal Trade Commission on March 11 sued DirecTV for false advertising, alleging that the satellite television provider misrepresented the true cost of its service. "Companies can't hide important information from consumers to trick them into buying goods and services, and that's what we allege DirecTV did," FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection head Jessica Rich said in a conference call with reporters. The FTC filed suit in San Francisco federal court, charging that DirecTV violated Section 5 of the FTC Act as well as the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. The FTC said the company lured consumers by advertising satellite TV service for $19.95 a month without clearly disclosing that the price jumps another $25 to $45 a month in the second year of the contract. If consumers tried to cancel, they faced early termination fees of up to $480, according to the FTC. The FTC said the company also didn't explain that after three months of free premium channels such as HBO, consumers had to contact DirecTV before the trial period ended to avoid being charged. The FTC is seeking consumer refunds that Rich estimated will total "many millions of dollars." A DirecTV spokesman disputed the allegations across the board. "The FTC's decision is flat-out wrong and we will vigorously defend ourselves, for as long as it takes," spokesman Darris Gringeri wrote in an email. "We go above and beyond to ensure that every new customer receives all the information they need, multiple times, to make informed and intelligent decisions. For us to do anything less just doesn't make sense." DirecTV is represented by Clayton Friedman -- cfriedman@manatt.com -- Chad Hummel and Linda Goldstein of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Mr. Friedman was not immediately reached for comment. The FTC's complaint comes as the Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission weigh approval of the $49 billion merger between AT&T Inc. and DirecTV. Ms. Rich said the FTC case "has nothing to do with any evaluation of that merger." DOJ considers mergers on antitrust grounds, while the FCC evaluates whether the combination is in the public interest. AT&T has also run afoul of the FTC of late. In October, the agency sued AT&T Mobility for allegedly misleading its smartphone customers by promising them unlimited data, only to throttle their data speeds if they used too much. That case is also pending in San Francisco federal court. DIRECTV: Court to Hear Appeal in Termination Fees Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court will consider whether satellite provider DirecTV can cut off a class action lawsuit and force customers suing over early termination fees into private arbitration hearings instead. The justices agreed on March 23 to hear an appeal from DirecTV, which says its customer agreements do not allow customers to band together to sue the company. The company argues that customers must use arbitration to resolve their claims one by one. A California state appeals court ruled against the DirecTV last year, saying that state law forbids agreements that waive customer's rights to bring a class action. The state Supreme Court affirmed. DirecTV argues that California law is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act, which favors such agreements. Justices will hear arguments this fall in the case, DirecTV v. Imbruglia, 14-462. EASTERN ARMORED: Truckers Obtain Favorable Ruling in FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled March 11 that a motor carrier exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime pay requirement does not apply to truck drivers who spend all or part of their time operating vehicles that weigh under 10,000 pounds. In a precedential ruling, the appeals court affirmed a district judge's ruling granting overtime pay to armored vehicle driver Ashley McMaster, a former hourly employee of Eastern Armored Services, who regularly worked in excess of 40 hours but did not receive overtime pay. Because about half of McMaster's schedule involved driving vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds, her work week falls under an FLSA revision known as the Corrections Act of 2008, the appeals court said. Ms. McMaster's claim is part of an FLSA collective action that also includes 25 other current and former Eastern employees, according to plaintiffs counsel. Eastern sought to rely on a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which said in a policy statement that trucking companies should not be subject to simultaneous jurisdiction of the FLSA and the Motor Carrier Act. But the Third Circuit panel rejected that claim, citing its own case law establishing a "strict separation" between jurisdiction of the Motor Carrier Act and the FLSA. Third Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes, joined by Judges Morton Greenberg and Robert Cowen, said professional motor carriers are generally exempt from the FLSA but the Corrections Act waives the exemption for truck drivers who, for all or part of their work week, drive vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds. The exemption does not apply to vehicles designed to transport eight or more passengers or those that transport hazardous materials. Under the unambiguous language of the Corrections Act, Ms. McMaster is entitled to overtime pay, the panel said. Ms. McMaster, who worked for the company from March 2010 to June 2011, spent about 51 percent of her time driving vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds and 49 percent driving vehicles under that weight. Therefore, she falls within the "carveout" of the Corrections Act of 2008, Judge Fuentes said. Eastern Armored Services took the case to the Third Circuit to appeal a March 2013 ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp of the District of New Jersey, who granted summary judgment to McMaster. Eastern cited district court rulings from Maryland, North Dakota and Oregon that relied on a "policy statement" in Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars Ltd., a Seventh Circuit ruling from 2009. That decision said holding truck drivers subject to regulation of the Motor Carrier Act when they drive trucks over 10,000 pounds and to the regulation of the FLSA when they drive "a truck that might weigh only a pound less, would require burdensome record-keeping, create confusion and give rise to mistakes and disputes." However, the Seventh Circuit's policy statement cannot overcome "an express change to the statutory scheme," the Third Circuit said. The Corrections Act plainly says that it applies to a covered employee notwithstanding the Motor Carrier Act exemption, the court said. The case was remanded to the district court for assessment of wages owed to Ms. McMaster and additional proceedings relating to the other members of the class. The district court is set to consider whether they, too, are covered by the Corrections Act, according to R. Andrew Santillo of Winebrake & Santillo, in Dresher, Pennsylvania, who filed the FLSA collective action along with Peter Winebrake of the same firm. "If there was any question before, I think [the decision] provides further support for the idea that these overtime laws should be interpreted broadly and the express meaning of the statute should apply," Mr. Santillo said. Christina Vassilou Harvey of Lomurro, Munson, Corner, Brown & Schottland in Freehold, New Jersey, who represented Eastern, declined to comment. ESTES HEATING: "Elery" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Elery, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Estes Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00738 (N.D. Ga., March 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Estes Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. is Georgia Corporation that operates as a heating and air conditioning contractor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM rmorgan@forthepeople.com EXXON MOBIL: Judge Dismisses Mayflower Oil Spill Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal class-action lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation over a 2013 crude oil spill in central Arkansas has been dismissed by a federal judge, who acknowledged in his ruling that his decision seems unfair. U.S. District Judge Brian Miller on March 17 dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. Judge Miller said in a 22-page ruling that he was incorrect in granting class-action status in the case and concluded that the easement contracts Exxon Mobil held with the property owners do not require the company to maintain the pipeline. Judge Miller said his task was to decide between two options, neither of which seem desirable. "If Exxon's position prevails, the message to easement grantors is that they are helpless in attempting to avoid a pipeline oil spill, and have no rights until after the oil starts spewing from the pipeline. And, this does not seem fair," Judge Miller wrote. "On the other hand, if plaintiffs' position prevails, easement grantors would essentially be able to hold pipeline easement holders hostage, threatening them with lawsuits or contract rescission every time the easement grantors possess any notion that the companies are not meeting the easement grantors' personal safety standards. And, this appears to be neither fair nor commercially acceptable." Judge Miller agreed with Exxon Mobil, which argued that Arkansas law interprets the easement contracts "as the mere granting of a right of way, without any affirmative duty to maintain or repair." He also noted a lack of similarities among class members, which likely would have included thousands of people in Arkansas, Texas, Illinois and Missouri, writing that an oil leak in Illinois "would have no practical effect on a landowner in Texas." Exxon Mobil spokesman Christian Flathman said in an email to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the company is "pleased with the Court's ruling [] and believe it properly applied the law to the facts of this case." Tom Thrash, an attorney for the two couples who filed the lawsuit, told The Associated Press on March 18 that he could appeal. "We're disappointed in the ruling and we just really haven't had a chance to analyze it," Mr. Thrash said. "An appeal is certainly a possibility." The 850-mile-long Pegasus pipeline runs from Texas to Illinois and was closed shortly after the oil spill. A just more than 200-mile segment of the pipeline in Texas has been restarted. The pipeline ruptured March 29, 2013, in Mayflower, spilling more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil in the town about 25 miles northwest of Little Rock. FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Automated Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Facebook Inc. was hit on March 3 in California federal court with a $5 million proposed class action accusing it of spamming cellphones and invading people's privacy with unwanted automated text messages notifying them that their accounts have supposedly been logged into. The suit -- whose allegations are similar to those contained in recent complaints lodged against Domino's Pizza LLC, American Eagle Outfitters Inc. and eBay Enterprise Marketing Solution Inc. -- claims Facebook knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with the texts. The law prohibits automated calls to a cellphone without prior express consent by the person being called, unless it's an emergency. Facebook offers an "extra security feature" in which it sends log- in notifications to alert users when their account is accessed from a new device, according to the suit. But the text messages are allegedly sent, sometimes many times a day, to the cellphones of people who haven't granted such authorization, who have asked that they stop or, even worse, who don't even use Facebook. While Facebook's website has instructions on how to deactivate the log-in notification feature, they only discuss changing a Facebook user's account settings, according to the putative class action. The company allegedly hasn't explained how people who get the messages despite not having a Facebook account can stop the spam. "Servicing over a billion Facebook accounts worldwide, Facebook's automated systems are powerful and, when used improperly, capable of extreme invasions into the privacy of American consumers," the complaint claims. "Facebook operates a sloppy system and in doing so shows complete disregard for the privacy of consumers." The instant suit comes after a California federal judge in October squashed a putative class action accusing gym chain Crunch San Diego LLC of spamming its members' cellphones with promotional text messages, finding that the TCPA didn't apply because the company hadn't used an autodialer. Lead plaintiff Noah Duguid, a Montana resident, said Facebook started texting his cellphone in late January of last year, even though he never gave his number to the company and never did business dealings with it. After Mr. Duguid allegedly sent the defendant a detailed email in April 2014 complaining about the messages and asking that they stop, Facebook replied with an automatic email telling him to log on to its website to report the problematic content. Mr. Duguid allegedly answered with a message saying, "A human needs to read this email and take action. Thank you!" But he received the same automated email. The following October, the plaintiff allegedly responded to a Facebook text with the word "off," after which the company replied, "Facebook texts are now off. Reply on to turn them back on." Regardless, the company continued to text Mr. Duguid, according to his proposed class action. The suit seeks to represent a class of individuals in the U.S. who didn't give Facebook their cell number and received one or more of the accused texts within the four years before the filing of the complaint, and a class of individuals who received texts in the same time frame despite telling Facebook they didn't want them. Plaintiff seeks at least $500 in damages for each violation of the TCPA. Mr. Duguid filed a nearly identical version of the suit in late November in New York federal court, saying it had jurisdiction because Facebook, which is based in Menlo Park, California, has an office in New York City. But after the defendant argued the state has no personal jurisdiction over the company, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew that suit on Tuesday. Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC, which is representing Duguid, told Law360 on March 3 that they "look forward to vindicating our clients rights and the rights of those similarly situated." Mr. Duguid is represented by Trinette Kent, Sergei Lemberg and Stephen Taylor of Lemberg Law LLC. The case is Noah Duguid et al. v. Facebook Inc., case number 3:15- cv-00985, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Illegally Records Calls, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jan Jerome Roaquin, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01841 (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendants unlawful practice of recording telephone calls and failing disclose its intentional recording. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com dreid@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com FORT COLLINS, CO: Judge Vacates Hearing in Panhandling Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Jason Pohl, writing for The Coloradoan, reports that Fort Collins' goal of staving off a class-action lawsuit that takes aim on the city's panhandling enforcement seems to have worked -- at least temporarily. But the suit's future remains unknown. A federal judge vacated on March 2 a hearing that could have resulted in a preliminary injunction on the city's panhandling ordinance enforcement -- an ordinance the American Civil Liberties Union asserts is over-broad and unconstitutional. That motion could have barred Fort Collins from enforcing seven particular provisions of its panhandling ordinance until the court could more exhaustively critique the class-action suit. Fort Collins City Council voted on Feb. 27 to dial back enforcement of the elements in question in the suit in hopes of buying time to re-evaluate what was working and where the ordinance could be strengthened to appease residents and panhandlers. Federal District Court Judge William J. Martinez has presided over the case since it was filed Feb. 10. Judge Martinez also served on the ACLU's legal panel from 2006 to 2010. Fort Collins has since requested he recuse himself from the proceedings. If the city's request is granted, and if the case continues to be aired through court, the suit would be assigned to another federal judge. Judge Martinez could also deny the motion and reset the date for the preliminary injunction hearing, officials said. The Colorado arm of the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city on behalf of four homeless individuals. It did so on the grounds police were infringing upon free-speech rights by warning individuals about solicitation or citing people for some forms of panhandling. The 29-page document also includes allegations from Greenpeace, Inc., that Fort Collins police have started targeting the environmental group's canvassing procedures in Old Town. FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Pleads Guilty to Spill-Related Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- John Raby, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a now-bankrupt chemical company pleaded guilty on March 23 to three pollution charges related to last year's spill that contaminated a West Virginia river. Mark Welch, chief restructuring officer of Freedom Industries, entered the plea on behalf of the company in federal court to negligent discharge of a pollutant and unlawful discharge of refuse matter, both misdemeanors, and violating a permit condition under the Clean Water Act, a felony. Thousands of gallons of a coal-cleaning agent from Freedom Industries in Charleston spilled into the Elk River and went into West Virginia American Water's intake 2 miles downstream on Jan. 9, 2014. It prompted a tap water ban for 300,000 residents in nine counties for up to 10 days while the water company's system was flushed out. Freedom Industries, which filed for bankruptcy eight days after the spill, faces a maximum $900,000 fine. Sentencing was set for June 29. "Extreme fines would be very difficult for the estate," Mr. Welch told U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston. "I have limited resources." In ordering a presentencing report, Judge Johnston said, "We'll find out how much money Freedom Industries has." An FBI affidavit says Freedom knew about critical flaws at its Charleston plant but never dealt with them. Federal investigators have said holes in a corroded tank's floor and roof likely helped cause the spill. Prosecutors have said the tank conditions "put an entire population needlessly at risk." In September a federal bankruptcy judge approved a $2.9 million settlement between the company and businesses and residents under which a panel would choose public interest projects that would benefit those whose tap water was contaminated. The settlement would rely on insurance proceeds from Freedom Industries. Former Freedom owners William Tis and Charles Herzing and two lower-level employees pleaded guilty to a pollution charge and will be sentenced in June. Another former Freedom owner, Dennis Farrell, and former President Gary Southern face trial later this year on charges related to the spill. In addition, Southern faces charges related to Freedom's bankruptcy. Tis, Herzing and Farrell owned Freedom until December 2013, when they sold it to Pennsylvania-based Chemstream Holdings for $20 million. Southern became president afterward, but he was in charge of Freedom's day-to-day operations for years beforehand, his FBI affidavit states. Southern is accused of scheming to defraud Freedom's creditors and plaintiffs who sued the company and him after the spill. Prosecutors claim he attempted to protect some of his assets from possible verdicts and judgments. One count, fraud by interstate commerce carrier, alleges that Southern sent a $6.5 million check from a personal bank account around Feb. 7, 2014, to an insurance company to be deposited in an annuity. Southern also previously was charged with bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud and lying in oath in relation to the bankruptcy case. FT MEAT: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Hildeberto Ibarra Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. F.T. Meat Corp. d/b/a Fine Fare Supermarket, and Kent Tavera, Case No. 1:15-cv-01906 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a supermarket located at 1065 East 163rd Street, Bronx, New York 10459. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gilman Law Pursues Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Gilman Law LLP on March 3 disclosed that it is pursuing a securities class action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. and certain officers and/or directors of the Company. According to a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (no. 4:13-cv-00157) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lumber Liquidators common stock between February 22, 2012 and July 9, 2014, certain false and/or misleading statements were made by Lumber Liquidators in violation of federal law. According to Lumber Liquidators' website, the Company is headquartered in Toano, Virginia, has stores in 46 states, and is the nation's largest retailer of hardwood flooring. The Virginia Case against Lumber Liquidators is generally focused on two key areas of alleged misconduct. First, the plaintiff alleges that Lumber Liquidators made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that certain of Lumber Liquidators' products did not comply with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Second, the Wall Street Journal previously reported, and the Company confirms in its securities filings, that federal authorities, including agents from the Department of Homeland Security Investigations and the Department of Justice, executed search warrants at the headquarters of Lumber Liquidators on September 26, 2013 looking for information relating to the importation of certain of its wood flooring products. The Virginia Case alleges that Lumber Liquidators violated the Lacey Act, which bans the import and trade of illegally sourced wood products. The Company notes in a recent securities filing that the Department of Justice is contemplating seeking criminal charges against Lumber Liquidators under the Lacey Act. On March 1, 2015, 60 Minutes ran a story focusing on the excessive formaldehyde levels contained in certain laminate flooring Lumber Liquidators purchased from manufacturers in China. As reported by 60 Minutes, certain of those manufacturers admitted that certain flooring manufactured for Lumber Liquidators was not CARB Phase 2 compliant even though it was labeled as such. CARB Phase 2 compliant refers to compliance with certain California formaldehyde emissions standards. If you are an investor who purchased Lumber Liquidators common stock on or after January 1, 2011, and continues to hold any of the stock purchased as of the present date, and suffered a loss or would like more information concerning Lumber Liquidators' products, then please contact Gilman Law LLP today, at 1-888-252- 0048 or http://www.gilmanlawllp.comto ensure your legal rights are not forfeited. About Gilman Law LLP Gilman Law LLP is a financial law firm that deals with range of claims stemming from securities class actions and derivative actions to consumer product injury lawsuits. GENERAL MOTORS: CEO to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that General Motors CEO Mary Barra will be deposed this fall by lawyers suing GM over its defective ignition switches. Ms. Barra is one of 35 current and former GM employees who will be deposed, attorney Bob Hilliard said on March 19. The depositions begin May 6 with the questioning of GM customer experience chief Alicia Boler-Davis. Mr. Hilliard sued GM last July on behalf of people who were injured or killed in crashes allegedly caused by faulty ignition switches. The switches could slip into the "off" position, disabling power steering and air bags. The lawsuit alleges GM knew about the defective switches as early as 2001 but didn't recall any cars until last year. Ms. Barra told Congress she learned about the defective switches in December 2013, just before GM began recalling affected vehicles. GENERAL MOTORS: Documents Reveal Ignition Switch Problem Cover-Up ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that lawyers in a Georgia lawsuit against General Motors Co. said at a news conference on March 16 that they have obtained documents contradicting Anton Valukas' report and showing that GM was engaged in a "strong case of fraud" and a cover-up of its fatal ignition-switch problems. The lawyers also said the role of former General Counsel Michael Millikin in the alleged cover-up is still being examined and will be subject to "further inquiry." Mr. Millikin retired under pressure and was replaced by Craig Glidden on March 1. GM spokesman Jim Cain declined to comment on the allegations. The alleged cover-up reached a "high level," according to Jere Beasley, and went well beyond the 15 former GM lawyers and other employees who were dismissed last year in the scandal. Mr. Beasley is founder of the Montgomery, Alabama, law firm Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles. "GM will never try a lawsuit where the defective ignition is involved, in my opinion," Mr. Beasley said, because he and other lawyers obtained documents "that make out a total case of product liability against GM and a very strong case of fraud. They will never let a jury hear it." Mr. Beasley said he couldn't give specifics about the documents because they remain under a court seal and confidential. But most of them involve manufacturer Delphi Corp., which made the faulty switch to GM's specifications. He also said the lawyers obtained documents that contradict the report done for GM by Mr. Valukas, managing partner of Jenner & Block. "His report concluded that engineers legitimately believed this wasn't a safety issue," Mr. Beasley said. But the documents show "they knew it was, and ignored it for cost reasons." Mr. Valukas' office said he was traveling and could not be reached for comment. Pressed for details, Mr. Beasley added, "You could take the Delphi documents alone and make out a fraud case against GM. They intentionally covered up a known defect. And they threw the lower-level employees under the bus." Mr. Beasley continued, "Hopefully the government will continue to pursue this." He was referring to an ongoing criminal investigation of GM by the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Beasley and attorney Lance Cooper, of the Cooper Firm in Marietta, Georgia, spoke at a news conference on March 16 ostensibly to discuss the settlement of the Ken and Beth Melton case against GM. The Meltons' daughter, Brooke, died in an accident caused by one of the switches. Terms of the settlement are confidential. But Mr. Cooper used the occasion to also talk about state and federal cases against GM that are still ongoing, especially a big multidistrict litigation that is tentatively scheduled for trial in January. He said he believed the Melton documents would be used and made public during the other trials. Mr. Cooper said if it hadn't been for the Melton case, which uncovered that a faulty spring in the ignition switch had been secretly replaced in new units, without GM ever doing a recall on the old ones, the company might have kept secretly settling lawsuits over crashes. But the Meltons fought to uncover the truth, he said, and GM had to admit its culpability before Congress, conduct millions of recalls and change its safety culture. GOLDMAN SACHS: Magistrate Judge Rejects Gender Bias Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that after almost five years of intense, closely-watched litigation, defense lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell and Paul Hastings may finally be close to knocking out a proposed gender discrimination class action against Goldman Sachs & Co. The lawsuit was brought by former Goldman vice president Cristina Chen-Oster and former associate Shanna Orlich, who sought to represent a class of nearly 1,800 women who worked at the bank from 2002 to the present. The women, represented by Outten & Golden and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, allege that Goldman's pay and promotion practices systematically favored men and that the bank maintained a "boy's club" work atmosphere. In a 46-page opinion issued on March 10, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis in Manhattan recommended against certifying the case as a class action. While the plaintiffs had presented evidence that female Goldman vice presidents and associates earned less than their male counterparts, the judge found, differences between individual business units at the bank made it too hard to show on a classwide basis that gender discrimination was the cause of any disparities. If adopted by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, the decision could spell the end of the case. But the defendants haven't always had the upper hand. U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand, who originally presided over the case, refused in 2011 to force a third plaintiff, former Goldman managing director Lisa Parisi, to arbitrate her claims against Goldman individually. Judge Sands also refused to dismiss most of the class allegations in July 2012. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Sand's decision on Ms. Parisi's arbitration agreement in 2013, siding with Goldman counsel Robert Giuffra Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell. With those rulings behind them, in October the two sides clashed at a lengthy hearing on class certification before Judge Francis. Plaintiffs lawyers Adam Klein of Outten & Golden and Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser argued that the former employees' suit challenged common practices, such as Goldman's review process and the forced ranking of employees into different tiers, that effectively favored men. Goldman's defense team -- led by Mr. Giuffra, Sullivan & Cromwell's Theodore Rogers -- rogersto@sullcrom.com -- and Barbara Brown of Paul Hastings -- maintained that the investment bank's corporate structure was complex and included a host of separate business with different compensation ranges based on their profitability. Judge Francis concluded on March 10 that the plaintiffs lawyers had teed up a common question of whether Goldman's reviews and rankings put women at a disadvantage. But citing the organization of Goldman's business units, the judge concluded that individual factors affecting pay and promotion "would effectively swamp the common question of whether the evaluative policies have, on average a discriminatory impact." "While the validity or bias of Goldman Sachs' performance measures is a common issue, there are countless individualized factors that influence whether those performance measures cause legally cognizable injury," Judge Francis wrote. Outten & Golden's Klein, who took the lead for the plaintiffs at the class certification hearing, wasn't immediately available to comment. Goldman spokesman David Wells said the bank is pleased with Francis' opinion. S&C's Giuffra declined to comment. GREEN BROOK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Broking" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Broking, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Green Brook Buick GMC Suzuki, Case No. 3:15-cv-01847 (D.N.J., March 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls using an automatic dialing system. Green Brook Buick GMC Suzuki is an automobile dealership with its principal place of business in Green Brook, N.J. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Adam Gonnelli, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com HAD INC: "Hannah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Hannah, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. H.A.D, Inc. c/o its registered agent John Hatfield, Case No. 2:15-cv-00933 (S.D. Ohio, March 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. H.A.D, Inc. is a drilling company that provides services to the environmental, gas, oil and water industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon Marie Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201 Canton, OH 44718 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Downie, Esq. 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (440) 973-9000 Facsimile: (440) 210-4610 E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com HAMILTON SCIENTIFIC: Sued Over Illegal Termination Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Arturo Almaraz and Isodoro Martinez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hamilton Scientific, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00206 (W.D. Tex., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination. Hamilton Scientific, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at 1716 Lawrence Drive, Suite 1 DePere. It is a manufacturer of lab equipment and supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Carollo, Esq. SNOW SPENCE GREEN LLP 2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 335-4800 Facsimile: (713) 335-4848 E-mail: carolyncarollo@snowspencelaw.com kennethgreen@snowspencelaw.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite1100 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. David C. Tufts, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 210 S. Washington Ave. Post Office Drawer 3103 Mobile, AL 36652 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com dtufts@thegardnerfirm.com HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses Pyramid-Scheme Suit -------------------------------------------------- Christopher Weber, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a judge dismissed a lawsuit by Herbalife shareholders who claimed that the business structure and marketing practices of the weight loss and nutritional supplements company violated the law and that they lost money because it amounts to a pyramid scheme. Plaintiffs did not show that accusations by activist investor Bill Ackman proved fraud by Herbalife, U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer in Los Angeles wrote in his ruling on March 17. Mr. Ackman, who runs Pershing Square Capital Management, bet heavily against the company's stock, describing Herbalife as a pyramid scheme. Because no fraud was proven, the judge said, the shareholders can't show that losses they suffered were caused by the company's perceived misrepresentations. Herbalife said it welcomed the judge's decision. "We are confident in the strong fundamentals of our business model," Julian Cacchioli, a company spokesman, said in a statement. Shareholder Abdul Awad sued and later was joined by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and the City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund. A lawyer for the pension funds, Maya Saxena, said on March 18 that her clients were considering whether to amend the complaint. Judge Fischer gave the investors until April 8 to make revisions. The case relied heavily on accusations made by Mr. Ackman in a three-hour presentation in New York last year. He focused on Herbalife's "nutrition clubs," private settings where Herbalife distributors sell the company's products -- such as weight-loss shakes -- and recruit new members. Mr. Ackman said that because the clubs run by Herbalife's distributors focus on recruiting instead of selling products, the clubs are by definition a pyramid scheme. He repeatedly tried to persuade other investors to bet against Herbalife, most memorably in a shouting match with billionaire investor Carl Icahn on live television in January 2013. Icahn has defended Herbalife. Herbalife has vigorously denied Mr. Ackman's arguments and says it operates like a multi-level marketing company similar to Avon, Amway and Mary Kay. Nutrition clubs have become an increasingly lucrative business model for Herbalife in the last 10 years, with more than 4,000 operating in the U.S. alone, according to the company. Mr. Ackman alleged that those attending nutrition clubs were not actually consumers of the products. Instead, they were often recruits to become nutrition club operators of their own. These recruits should not be thought of as customers, but rather the next layer in the pyramid, he said. Pyramid schemes are illegal because they eventually collapse once there are no more people to recruit. HESKA CORPORATION: Faces "Fauley" Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes ------------------------------------------------------------- Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Heska Corporation and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02171 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. is a manufacturers of all natural dog and cat food. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge OKs Autonomy Shareholder Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge on March 13 finally green-lighted a settlement that resolves shareholder derivative claims against Hewlett-Packard Co. over its disastrous 2011 acquisition of British software firm Autonomy. The proposed deal, which provides for governance reforms but no cash for shareholders, represents the lawyers' fourth attempt to settle the case. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer rejected the last proposal because it released HP from allegations unrelated to Autonomy. But the latest deal resolves those concerns, the judge wrote on March 13 in an order granting preliminary approval. He set a final approval hearing for July. "And here we go again," Judge Breyer wrote. But unlike last time, in this deal "the shareholders do not appear to be relinquishing any claims that lack a factual overlap with the substance of this litigation," and, he concluded, "the trade-off of Autonomy-related claims for corporate governance reforms appears fair." Judge Breyer wrote he also appreciates that the new settlement will reform the merger and acquisition policies of both HP and its new arm. In October, HP announced plans to separate into two companies -- Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, focusing on software and service, and HP Inc., focusing on personal systems. The settlement, forged by plaintiffs lawyers with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, and HP's counsel with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, has been hotly contested from the start. Judge Breyer rejected the first deal in August, after taking issue with a provision that would give plaintiffs lawyers $18 million plus up to $30 million in contingency fees in exchange for teaming up with HP to go after Autonomy. Firms including Keker & Van Nest and Greenfield & Goodman in New York have lined up to intervene in the litigation multiple times, arguing each draft of the settlement is unfair to the shareholders. Judge Breyer denied Greenfield & Goodman's outstanding motions on March 13. The proposal Judge Breyer preliminarily approved provides for $7.2 million in fees and costs for Cotchett Pitre and $1.6 million for Robbins Geller. IBM CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Securities Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that IBM Corp was sued on March 2 by a shareholder that said it committed securities fraud by failing to write down a money-losing semiconductor unit before agreeing to pay another company $1.5 billion to take that unit off its hands. The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court arose from IBM's announcement last Oct. 20 that it would sell the unit to GlobalFoundries Inc, and take a related $4.7 billion pre-tax charge. IBM also announced third-quarter results that day. Its share price fell 9 percent over the next two trading days, wiping out more than $18 billion of market value. The Armonk, New York-based company did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc is among IBM's largest shareholders. According to the complaint, IBM inflated its stock price before selling the semiconductor unit by carrying the unit's property, plant and equipment assets on its books at $2.4 billion, when it should have known the assets were worthless. The complaint said potential bidders had been unwilling to pay much more than $1 billion for the entire unit, including intellectual property and personnel, suggesting that the hard assets had no or negative market value. The lawsuit by the City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System in Michigan also named three IBM officials as defendants, including Chief Executive Virginia Rometty. It seeks class-action status on behalf of shareholders from April 17 to Oct. 17, 2014. "Defendants presented a misleading picture of IBM's business and prospects," the complaint said. "When the truth about the company was revealed to the market, the price of IBM common stock fell precipitously." GlobalFoundries is an affiliate of Mubadala Development Co, an Abu Dhabi state investment fund. The case is City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. IBM Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 15-01513. IL MULINO: "Hawes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Hawes and Alex Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Il Mulino, IM NY AC, LLC t/a and/or d/b/a Il Mulino and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01863 (D.N.J., March 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other appropriate, legal and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah L. Mains, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C. 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 Facsimile: (856) 727-9797 E-mail: dmains@costellomains.com INTER-CON SECURITY: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Easterbrook, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00565 (S.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of procuring consumer reports without proper authorization and disclosure. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. is a security company that provides physical security services to government, commercial, and Fortune 100 customers in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: Norm@bamlawca.com Website: www.bamlawca.com JANI-KING: Franchisees Can Proceed With Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that nearly 250 people who run franchises for the cleaning company Jani-King got certification to bring a class action suit against the company for misclassifying them as independent contractors. According to the two plaintiffs who brought the suit on behalf of area Jani-King franchisees, they are really just employees of the Texas-based company. "Plaintiffs contend that under Pennsylvania law, specifically the WPCL, plaintiffs, and the proposed class members, should have been treated as employees of Jani-King -- not independent contractors -- because Jani-King's universal policies and procedures were so controlling that they created an employment relationship," said U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, referring to the state's Wage Payment and Collection Law. The case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction. "Plaintiffs further claim that, as a result of this alleged misclassification, Jani-King took improper deductions from franchisees' wages," Judge Surrick said. The judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification that is expected to cover 185 people in Pennsylvania and 61 people who live out-of-state. The plaintiffs met the federal requirements for getting class status by showing numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy and predominance. Jani-King contested the plaintiffs' arguments for typicality, adequacy and predominance. The typicality standard requires the named plaintiffs who are bringing the case as a class action to show that their claims are typical of the class as a whole. They argued that Jani-King's policies and procedures -- which include the company doling out cleaning contracts to its franchisees and handling all of the billing from customers, sending the franchisees payment each month with the company's fees subtracted -- kept such extensive control over the manner and means by which the franchisees were required to do their work that they should have been classified as employees. This situation would hold for all of the area franchisees, they argued. Jani-King, however, argued the claims aren't typical of the class because some franchisees performed the cleaning services themselves and others hired employees to do the cleaning and some franchisees incorporated while others did not. "These factual differences do not make plaintiffs' claims atypical," the judge said. "All the class members will be asserting the same legal claim as plaintiffs (violation of the WPCL stemming from misclassification as independent contractors) based upon the same conduct by Jani-King (control over franchisees through the franchise agreement and universal policies and procedures)." On the related element of adequacy, which requires the class representatives protect the interest of the class, Jani-King argued that one of the two named plaintiffs, Howard Brooks, wouldn't qualify because he runs his franchise as a corporate entity and, under Pennsylvania law, a corporate entity can't bring a claim under the WPCL. That's true, Judge Surrick said, but that doesn't mean that Brooks can't bring a WPCL claim. "He is a qualified class representative to the extent that he can properly bring a claim under the WPCL," the judge said. "If plaintiffs claim that a corporation formed by a Jani-King franchisee is an employee of Jani-King and that improper deductions were taken from the corporation, in violation of the WPCL, those claims will fail. We do not read the word 'individuals' in plaintiffs' class definition to include corporations." Judge Surrick also disposed of Jani-King's second argument against adequacy, which was that there is "an inherent conflict of interest among class members" because some franchisees would rather remain independent contractors than become employees. Judge Surrick included the company's citation to several franchisees' statements that they are satisfied with their current setup, but said that any large-scale class action could include some class members who disagree with the named plaintiffs. "Furthermore, even if we believed that some class members disagreed with the remedy plaintiff was seeking, that would not necessarily undermine adequacy," Judge Surrick said. "A number of courts have hesitated to find class representatives inadequate based on some class members preferring that an alleged illegal practice continues." On the question of predominance, Judge Surrick said, "We agree with Jani-King that to satisfy the predominance requirement, the plaintiffs must show that Jani-King has the right to control the manner in which its franchisees perform their day-to-day activities through common evidence. However, Jani-King takes their argument a step too far." The company asked the court to adopt the reasoning of the Northern District of California in its 2011 opinion in Juarez v. Jani-King, which would exclude evidence showing just the "common hallmarks of a franchise," Judge Surrick said, including Jani-King's policies to protect its service mark and goodwill. However, that case was decided on California law. "That approach would be inappropriate here, as Pennsylvania law is different," Judge Surrick said. "Pennsylvania does not distinguish between controls put in place to protect a franchise's goodwill and intellectual property and controls for other purposes. Rather, Pennsylvania is solely concerned with whether the franchisor has the ability to control the manner of the franchisee's work." The judge held the plaintiffs met the predominance requirement. David J. Cohen of Kolman Ely in Penndel represented the plaintiffs and couldn't be reached for comment. Aaron Van Oort of Faegre Baker Daniels in Minneapolis represented Jani-King and couldn't be reached for comment. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Conn. Law Firms File Xarelto Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Stapleton, writing for The Recorder, reports that hundreds of lawsuits have been filed nationally against the makers of Xarelto, a blood thinner that is alleged to cause uncontrollable and sometimes fatal bleeding, are mounting nationally, and four Connecticut law firms have brought claims. One of the first Connecticut plaintiffs is Elsie Smith, 87, of Bridgeport, who was prescribed the Food and Drug Administration- approved medication in 2012. Ms. Smith used Xarelto for about two years before she suffered "a life-threatening bleeding incident" in 2014, according to one of her lawyers, Kelly Fitzpatrick, of Ventura Ribeiro & Smith in Danbury. Although initially approved for deep vein thrombosis, the medication was later approved and used to reduce the risk of blood clots and strokes. But the drug manufacturers, including a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, failed to adequately warn doctors of the risks of side effects, including uncontrolled bleeding. Three other lawsuits have been filed in Connecticut against Xarelto over the past two months, and all have been tranferred to leading to a docket of consolidated cases in Louisiana. Fitzpatrick, who recently joined the Danbury-based firm in its mass torts practice group, said the Connecticut lawsuit has been transferred to the mass tort docket in New Orleans. "The litigation is just starting," she said. The cases will be heard by Judge Eldon Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana. Because the anti-coagulant drug was widely used in Connecticut, Mr. Fitzpatrick said there could be many more plaintiffs in the state. "We have been evaluating a number of possible plaintiffs' cases," she said. The lawsuits are filed against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. Connecticut law firms that have filed lawsuits on behalf of clients include Scott & Scott in Colchester, Motley Rice in Harford, and Ury Moskow in Fairfield. All of the suits claims Xarelto can cause "bleeding that cannot be stopped because there's no antidote," Fitzpatrick said. The person can bleed to death or sustain serious injuries. Albert Bixler -- abixler@eckertseamans.com -- of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, represents Bayer and was not available for comment. David F. Abernethy -- David.Abernethy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath, represents Janssen, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. "We will defend ourselves against the claims raised in this litigation," a Janssen spokesman said in a published statement. "Xarelto is an important anticoagulant used to treat and reduce the risk of life-threatening blood clots. After more than three years on the U.S. market, to date, the benefit-risk profile of Xarelto remains favorable and consistent with clinical trials. "All anticoagulants, or blood thinners, carry the risk of bleeding, and the prescribing information for Xarelto has always warned of these risks," the spokesman said. According to the lawsuit, Xarelto was marketed as the "next generation" of blood thinners in that it does not require monitoring of blood plasma levels, as its counterpart medications do. Xarelto was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and eventually went on to garner $2 billion in sales nationwide with roughly one million prescriptions written by 2013, two years after the drug's introduction into the market, according to court documents. While sales representatives continued to market Xarelto as a convenient alternative to the established blood-thinner warfarin, according to the lawsuit, by the end of 2012, there had been 2,080 Xarelto-related injuries, including 151 deaths. The lawsuit filed by the Danbury firm, and others like it, emphasize that there is currently no available medication or other agent to reverse the effects of Xarelto. JM MATTRESS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Martinez-Negrete, Cristian Zarate-Gutierrez, Miguel Martinez, Angel Lopez, and Angelica Figueroa, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. JM Mattress, Inc., and Nabil Kouk, Case No. 1:15-cv-02195 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a furniture store in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com JOHNS HOPKINS: Nikita Levy Settlement Class Action Appeal Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Jacobs, writing for Daily Record, reports that a lone objector to Johns Hopkins Hospital System's $190 million settlement with more than 8,000 patients of former gynecologist Nikita Levy has dismissed her appeal, according to court records. The Court of Special Appeals docketed Audrey Dagmar Tomerlin's appeal as dismissed Feb. 5, and six days later issued a mandate closing the case at the appellate court level, according to court records. The mandate was filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court on Feb. 18, according to court records. Ms. Tomerlin, a former Hopkins dietician and patient of Levy's, filed her notice of appeal in October, a month after the settlement was approved. She alleged the mandatory class action denied her due process and that the resulting settlement was "only fair and financially beneficial to Johns Hopkins and class counsel." Under a mandatory class action, prospective plaintiffs cannot opt out and sue on their own. Ms. Tomerlin declined to comment on March 2 about the dismissal. In October, she said she was not against Levy's patients receiving compensation but that there were "a lot of violations left out of the class action." Ms. Tomerlin, who now lives in California, represented herself on appeal. Levy worked at Hopkins from 1988 until Feb. 8, 2013, when the hospital terminated his employment after being alerted to his possible misconduct. Police found 10 file servers' worth of photos and videos among his possessions. Levy committed suicide less than two weeks after he was fired and days before two groups totaling 2,500 women filed multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuits against the hospital over his conduct. Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Sylvester B. Cox has yet to rule on whether to award the plaintiffs' class counsel their requested 35 percent in attorneys' fees after hearing arguments in October. JSV ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JSV Enterprises, Inc., Flagship Queens, Inc., Fotios "Frank" Lountzis, Vincent Pupplo, and Demetrios "Jimmy" Skartsiaris, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-01306 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 13830 Queens Boulevard, Briarwood, New York 11435. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com KAHALA CORP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Advertisements, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- M & G Auto Parts, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kahala Corp., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01860 (D.N.J., March 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited faxed advertisements. Kahala Corp. owns and operates a restaurant within the State of Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Greogry Michael Dexter, Esq. SCHEPISI & MCLAUGHLIN PA 473 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (201) 569-9898 E-mail: gdexter@schepisi.com LENOVO US: Faces "Behren" Suit Over Harmful Spyware --------------------------------------------------- Michelle Behren and Mary Jane Barbosa, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Superfish Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01177 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. Steven R. Jaffe, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com steve@pathtojustice.com LENOVO US: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Harmful Spyware ---------------------------------------------------- Russell Wood and Thomas Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company, Inc., Lenovo Group Limited, and Superfish Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01166 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Dalbey, Esq. Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5461 E-mail: cdalbey@weitzlux.com rgreenwald@weitzlux.com jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com LEWIS ENERGY: Faces "Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raul Dominguez and Rafael Martinez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lewis Energy Group, L.P. a/k/a Lewis Resource Management, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00185 (W.D. Tex., March 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Lewis Energy Group, L.P. is a Delaware oil and gas exploration company that transacts business in the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON AND BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com LOS TAQUITOS: Faces "Olvera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Olvera, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Los Taquitos Del Tig Inc. (d/b/a Los Taquitos Del Tio) and Virginio Munoz, Case No. 1:15-cv-01262 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant located at 32- 15 Junction Boulevard, East Elmhurst, New York 11369. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Ashley" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Ashley and Nicole Ashley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-14081 (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1906 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Kleinsasser" Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------- Mary Kleinsasser, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00376 (W.D. Wash., March 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Sahn" Suit Over Toxic Flooring --------------------------------------------------------- Tara Sahn, Michael Sahn, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01176 (D.S.C., March 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse Allen Kirchner, Esq. THURMOND KIRCHNER TIMBES AND YELVERTON 15 Middle Atlantic Wharf, Suite 101 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 937-8000 Facsimile: (843) 937-4200 E-mail: jkirchner@tktylawfirm.com - and - Matthew Stephen Byzet, Esq. KEAVENY LAW FIRM 1634 Ashley River Road Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 225-2820 E-mail: mbyzet@keavenylawfirm.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Vickery" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------ Stacy Vickery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv- 00106 (E.D. Tenn., March 11, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC Bank of America Center 550 Main Avenue, Suite 600 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com mark@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (2150 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net rpaul@bm.net LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "White" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ---------------------------------------------------------- Adam White and Julia White, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 01175 (D.S.C., March 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine H. McElveen, Esq. T. Christopher Tuck, Esq. James L. Ward Jr., Esq. Robert S. Wood, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd. Building A Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 E-mail: hrowell@rpwb.com ctuck@rpwb.com jward@rpwb.com bwood@rpwb.com - and - Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK C. TANENBAUM, PA 241-243 East Bay Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 577-5100 E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Parnella" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Parnella, Joan Kahn, Shawn Burke, Don Pickett, Eli Adam, Helyn Palmer, Cyndy Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00166 (E.D. Tex., March 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Scott Summy, Esq. Cary McDougal, Esq. Carla Burke, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com cmcdougal@baronbudd.com cburke@baronbudd.com - and - Roland Tellis, Esq. Mark Pifko, Esq. David Fernandes, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com mpifko@baronbudd.com dfernandes@baronbudd.com - and - J. Burton LeBlanc, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 2600 CitiPlace Drive Baton Rouge, LO Telephone: (225) 927-5441 Facsimile: (225) 927-5449 E-mail: bleblanc@baronbudd.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Laminate Formaldehyde ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meg Wagner, writing for New York Daily News, reports that Chinese- made laminate flooring sold by retailer Lumber Liquidators contains up to 20 times more cancer-causing formaldehyde than regulatory standards permit, a California lawyer claims. Environmental attorney Richard Drury filed a class action against the lumber giant, arguing that the company's Chinese laminates, used in home construction across the country, fail to meet California standards for the toxic emissions, CBS "60 Minutes" reported. California's limits are set to become the national standard later this year. Laminate is legally allowed to contain some traces of formaldehyde, a chemical known to cause cancer and respiratory ailments, because the compound is used in some cheap flooring glues. But when Drury and Denny Larson, who heads the environmental nonprofit Global Community Monitor, tested 150 boxes of Lumber Liquidators' flooring, they found that every single one that was made in China exceeded the state's limit. Most were seven times over the state standard, and some were close to 20 times greater than the legal threshold. "It's a startling amount. It was so high, in fact, that one of our test labs thought their machine was broken," Drury told "60 Minutes." American-made laminates sold at Lumber Liquidators had acceptable levels of the toxin. So did flooring sold at Lowe's and Home Depot. "They're guilty of selling people product that could make them sick," Larson said of Lumber Liquidators. "60 Minutes" tested flooring sold at Lumber Liquidators stores in Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas and Virginia. Of the 31 boxes of flooring, only one met the formaldehyde limit. Advocates accuse Lumber Liquidators of skimping on regulations to save money: Formaldehyde-rich glues are cheaper than safer alternatives, they said. Lumber Liquidators' founder and Chairman Tom Sullivan said the company is not required to test finished flooring. He told "60 Minutes" he'd investigate the claims against the Chinese factories. LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: Bank May Not Be Added as Defendant in Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Kalinowski, writing for The Standard Speaker, reports that an attorney representing juveniles in a class action lawsuit over Luzerne County's kids-for-cash scandal said he doubts First National Community Bank could be added as a defendant despite news that the bank failed to report suspicious transactions from a corrupt judge who sat on its board of directors. "It would be a stretch," attorney Michael Cefalo of West Pittston said. Federal regulators have said then-Luzerne County Judge Michael T. Conahan made multiple suspicious transactions, as early as 2005, while the scandal unfolded, but the bank failed to file a "Suspicious Activity Report." The bank was fined $1.5 million. Not filing a report doesn't mean there was a connection to the illegal activities of the judges, Mr. Cefalo said. "It would be hard pressed to say the bank, because of their failure to respond, would have alerted" authorities to the scheme, Mr. Cefalo said. Bank officials have said they had no knowledge of Judge Conahan's wrongdoing. Judge Conahan and former Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. conspired to shutter a county-run juvenile detention center and funneled youths to for-profit detention centers while accepting $2.8 million in cash payments, according to authorities. Both are jailed in federal prison. The builder of the detention center, Robert Mericle, who pleaded guilty to failing to report a felony in the case, reached a $17.75 million settlement in the lawsuit in 2012. He is serving a one- year prison sentence. The civil suit in the case against Robert Powell -- co-owner of the facilities who served 18 months in federal prison -- remains open, but the sides are in settlement talks, attorneys have said. Mr. Cefalo said they are first waiting for a resolution in another related case involving Powell and his former business partner, Gregory Zappala. Messrs. Powell and Zappala are suing one another in federal court, each claiming the other tried to steal as a result of the notorious scandal. The suit filed by Mr. Zappala targets a potential $200 million windfall that is due to Mr. Powell and his law firm for his representation of local clients who were part of an environmental contamination lawsuit that settled nationwide for $5.15 billion. LYFT INC: Sued in Cal. Over Delayed Background Check Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Loewen and Jonathan Wright, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-01159 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to timely process background check to ensure that new drivers would be able to give their first ride. Lyft, Inc. is a San Francisco-based transportation network company that facilitates peer-to-peer ridesharing through its mobile-phone application by connecting passengers who need a ride to drivers who have a car. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Rex Parris, Esq. Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. Kitty Szeto, Esq. John M. Bickford, Esq. R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 Telephone: (661) 949-2595 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524 E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com awheeler@rrexparris.com kszeto@rrexparris.com jbickford@rrexparris.com - and - Daniel A. Carpio, Esq. Michael B. Turner, Esq. (SBN 281229) DUNN & ASSOCIATES 854 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 393-2769 Facsimile: (310) 396-7575 E-mail: carpio@dunnpi.com turner@dunnpi.com MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff's Contempt May Spur Victim Payouts --------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Cassidy, writing for AZCentral, reports that a federal lawsuit that has already cost Maricopa County Sheriff's Office millions in a court-imposed policy overhaul may soon lead to payouts for victims of racially motivated policing. In the nearly two years since a federal judge found that Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies routinely discriminated against Latinos during immigration-enforcement efforts, the agency has been forced to spend $30 million in an attempt to end the unconstitutional practices. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow was the result of a successful class-action lawsuit leveled against Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The plaintiffs did not ask for monetary damages, but called for big-ticket remedies, including a court- appointed monitor and recording devices for deputies. Judge Snow has indicated there may be more expenses to come should the six-term sheriff be found in contempt of the court. Judge Snow has repeatedly blasted the agency's brass for defying his orders and this month followed through on his threat to order a civil contempt hearing, currently slated for April 21-24. During a hearing, Judge Snow and attorneys discussed the possibility of establishing a compensation fund for people who were unlawfully detained by deputies after the judge explicitly barred them from doing so in an earlier 2011 ruling. "We know there was a significant amount of them, that they were picked up after the preliminary injunction or held longer . . . and that would be a violation of the order," said plaintiffs' attorney Dan Pochoda with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. "The problem we have is being able to identify any of those people." Lawsuit fines are paid out by the county's insurance policy, which is funded by taxpayers. Defying an order On Dec. 23, 2011, months before the civil-rights trial began, Judge Snow issued a preliminary injunction that precluded deputies from detaining any person "only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States." But Judge Snow said it's recently become apparent to him that his order did little to thwart the practice. After a former deputy committed suicide last May, investigators unearthed a stash of stolen ID cards and license plates, as well as evidence that the deputy, Ramon "Charley" Armendariz, had been recording many of his traffic stops. The revelation prompted the discovery of thousands more recordings that revealed the immigration-enforcement agenda persisted months after the order. Sheriff's officials have corroborated this evidence, as Snow points out in his recent contempt hearing directive. "[T]he Armendariz videotapes resulted in administrative interviews with MCSO personnel that have apparently revealed that Defendants, as a matter of regular practice and operation, continued actively enforcing federal immigration law by conducting immigration interdiction operations, and detaining persons after officers concluded that there was not criminal law basis for such detention," he wrote. Sheriff's officials do not deny this allegation, defense attorney Tom Liddy said. "It was the MCSO that discovered it and reported it to the monitor and to the court immediately," he said in a phone interview on Feb. 27. Judge Snow has outlined the sheriff's defiance as one of the three broad topics for the contempt hearings. Sheriff's officials will also have to answer why they did not disclose all relevant information during pre-trial proceedings, and why Arpaio's aides failed to properly follow Snow's May order to quietly collect audio and video-recording devices from deputies. Payout for victims? At a Feb. 26 hearing, Judge Snow asked attorneys whether compensation issues stemming from the preliminary injunction would warrant a separate class-action damage case against the county. Plaintiff's attorney Cecillia Wang from the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project mentioned the possibility of a compensation fund for victims, to be paid out by the defendants. Ms. Wang said she believed it would be more efficient to keep the possibility within the confines of Snow's court. There's a compensation aspect to any contempt finding, Pochoda explained on Feb. 27. What makes this case problematic is the unknown number of victims and the inherent difficulties in locating someone outside U.S. borders. One of the popular mechanisms for dealing with those kinds of issues is a compensation fund -- essentially a pot of money that can be tapped for years after a settlement, as victims come forward. Similar methods have been used after natural and human disasters like the 2010 BP oil spill and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Pochoda said. There is no exact formula for identifying victims. Some may present documents that they were detained and had criminal charges dropped or never filed; some may report that they were brought by deputies to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mr. Pochoda said plaintiffs' attorneys have issued a number of records and discovery requests to the Sheriff's Office to try to identify victims who were detained from the day after the preliminary injunction and on. Mr. Liddy said locating the victims is a "high priority for the sheriff," as well. "He has directed MCSO personnel to do that," he said. On Feb. 26, as Judge Snow mulled over the possibility of a settlement rather than contempt hearing, the judge indicated that victim compensation would be a key element to any final determination. Judge Snow said his ultimate goal was to ensure compliance from the defendants in the future, and has often wondered aloud whether civil-contempt remedies will be sufficient. A criminal-contempt hearing, he has often said, may be more appropriate. However, he said on Feb. 26, "I don't want to refer this matter to criminal-contempt hearing if I can have adequate remedies for the victims in this case." MDHEARINGAID INC: Illegally Records Calls, "Byrd" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Byrd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MDHearingAid, Inc., an Illinois corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01839 (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful practice of recording telephone calls and failing disclose its intentional recording. MDHearingAid, Inc. owns and operates a Hearing Aid store. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com dreid@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com MEE CHI: "Mao" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Yue Jian Mao, Guo Bin Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Mee Chi Corp. d/b/a Mee Noodles, Jiang Qing Chen, "John" Zhou, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01799 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate 3 restaurants in Manhattan, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com MERCK & CO: Claims Process Litigation Underway in NuvaRing Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that 13 months after Merck agreed to pay $100 million to settle litigation over the NuvaRing contraceptive, not a single active case remains in New Jersey. Meanwhile, lawyers for the plaintiffs acknowledged that the settlement, which must be divided among thousands of claimants, is not as large as they had hoped but said it was as good as they could get, given the difficulty in proving liability. Paul Rheingold of Rheingold Valet Rheingold McCartney & Giuffra in New York, whose firm represents hundreds of claimants in New Jersey and elsewhere, blamed the small settlement amount for claims processing shortcuts that put added burdens on both claimants and their lawyers. Mr. Rheingold said the settlement was unlike others he has seen, in that instead of knocking off points by showing conditions such as obesity or smoking, claimants must prove the absence of such conditions to bump up their payments and must do so through medical records contemporaneous with their claimed injuries. A medical observation made at a different time would not suffice, nor would a sworn statement, Rheingold said, adding that he was forced to hire two registered nurses to scour clients' medical records. Mr. Rheingold said he is now getting calls from unhappy clients and having to tell them, "I know you weren't fat, but it's not in the chart." Two clients walked away "as a matter of principle" because they were unwilling to incur costs for expert reports and depositions on our settlement , according to Mr. Rheingold. The $100 million paid by Merck stands in contrast to the nearly $1.6 billion the German company Bayer AG has paid to resolve claims over its Yasmin and Yaz birth control pills, which allegedly caused the same types of harm as NuvaRing. Professor Carl Tobias, who teaches torts and products liability law at the University of Richmond School of Law, said liability was less clear cut against Merck than other birth control makers that paid more. Shelly Leonard of Blau Leonard, one of plaintiffs liaison counsel in New Jersey, called the NuvaRing settlement "a very just one," given that "the science just was not there." The vast majority of plaintiffs in the NuvaRing litigation opted to settle and the claims resolution process is underway. March 2 was the final date for appealing denials of claims and though some opted out, the litigation has ended in New Jersey, where the last six active matters were thrown out in January. The products liability suits, which have been centralized as a mass tort in Bergen County Superior Court since March 2009, once numbered in the hundreds in New Jersey, with many more consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, by the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). None of them made it to trial in federal or state court. NuvaRing is a vaginal contraceptive ring made of flexible plastic that releases a low dose of synthetic progestin and estrogen hormone over a three-week period. It was marketed as an easier once-monthly alternative to birth control pills. Approved by the FDA in 2001 and under patent protection until 2018, it is manufactured by Merck & Co., based in Kenilworth, New Jersey. Merck's most recent 10-K filing, on Feb. 27, reported NuvaRing sales of $723 million for 2014, up from $686 million the year before. The plaintiffs alleged that NuvaRing causes blood clots that can lead to strokes, heart attacks and even death, and that they were not adequately warned of the dangers, according to court papers. The Feb. 7, 2014, global settlement was endorsed that same day by Judge Brian Martinotti in Bergen County and U.S. District Judge Raymond Sippel. Mediated with the help of retired federal district judge Wayne Anderson, the agreement was negotiated between the company and three plaintiffs lawyers -- Roger Denton -- rdenton@uselaws.com -- and Kristine Kraft of Schlichter Bogard & Denton in St. Louis and Hunter Shkolnik -- Hunter@NapoliBern.com -- of New York's Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik. There were 3,800 eligible claimants, consisting of the New Jersey and MDL plaintiffs, as well as others who had not yet filed suit but retained an attorney by the Feb. 7, 2014, date. The settlement agreement required at least 95 percent participation or Merck could walk away. Prior to the settlement, in 2011, Sippel had ordered that a common benefit fund be set up, with 11 percent of any recovery to be reserved for legal fees and 4.5 percent for MDL administration expenses. Following the $100 million settlement, Sippel held that $11 million was reasonable for attorney fees, given the 34,400 hours the lawyers and their staff had spent on the litigation, and he allocated the money among 21 firms. The largest portion, $6.9 million, went to Schlichter Bogard, followed by $1.6 million to Napoli Bern, $510,000 to the Alvarez Law Firm in Coral Gables, Florida, $300,000 to Rheingold Valet and $200,000 to Blau Leonard. The Plaintiffs' Claims Review Committee, the same lawyers who negotiated the agreement, was tasked with deciding which claimants were eligible to recover and how much. About 3,500 hundred claims were submitted. At the time of the settlement, New Jersey had 215 cases pending but Shkolnik estimated that there were probably another 100 qualifying unfiled claims. The claims have now all been reviewed and claimants have been notified of how much they are to receive. Mr. Rheingold said six categories of injury were established, including death, which pays $75,000, pulmonary embolism, paying $26,000, and deep vein thrombosis, paying $16,400, with additional sums available to claimants who earned points for proving the absence of factors such as obesity and smoking. Of the 400-plus cases his firm is handling together with Blau Leonard Law Group in Jersey City, New Jersey, there are about 36 pending appeals stemming from the claims review process, Mr. Rheingold said. Given only 10 days -- including non-business days -- to appeal, his firm had to "rush around and pull people off other jobs" to meet the deadline, he said. Despite his unhappiness with the small size of the settlement, Rheingold said it could not be avoided because "the liability turned out to be very poor." He attributed much of that to Martinotti's 2013 summary judgment decision in Merck's favor on the adequacy of its warnings. The ruling on a group of bellwether cases with implications for others was appealed but the appeal was dropped in light of the settlement, Mr. Rheingold said. "It was a hard-fought case and came to a point when resolution was appropriate," Shkolnik said. The appeals of claims reviews are to be decided by a special master, Daniel Stack, a retired Illinois state judge who is now with Aequitas Dispute Resolution. Neither Kraft nor Shkolnik could say how long it will be until claims start to be paid, only that payment cannot commence until all claims review appeals are resolved and medical liens are satisfied. "We're working hard and steadily for the benefit of the women that have been victimized by use of the NuvaRing," Kraft said. "That is our focus." The Feb. 27 10-K filing said that cases will be dismissed once the claims administration process concludes and the company expects that process to begin in the second quarter of 2015 and to continue on a rolling basis through the year. The filing also stated that as of Dec. 31, 2014, about 80 cases outside of the settlement program remained and those plaintiffs and any future ones in the MDL or New Jersey who failed to meet various discovery and evidentiary requirements specified in post-settlement case management orders would be subject to an order to show cause why their case should not be dismissed with prejudice. That is what happened to the last six New Jersey plaintiffs, whose claims were thrown out Jan. 22. Four of those plaintiffs were represented by Napoli Bern and two by Valet Rheingold. Martinotti said in his order that they failed to comply with a Feb. 7, 2014, case management order, which set requirements for those not participating in the settlement, either because they chose not to or filed afterward. Among other things, the plaintiffs were required to notify pharmacies and medical providers to preserve evidence related to their claims, give defense counsel a list of who got the notice, and provide certain discovery within a specified time frame. Shortly after the dismissals, Martinotti asked that the mass-tort designation be terminated because "all active litigation has been concluded." The time to comment on his request expired March 2 and no comments were made. Merck lawyer Melissa Geist -- mgeist@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith in Princeton, New Jersey, referred a request for comment to Merck. Merck's Global Communications Director Lainie Keller said questions about the claims process should be addressed to the claims administrator, who did not respond to a request for comment by press time. Ms. Keller also sent a link to a Merck Web page that said the company stands behind the safety profile and efficacy of NuvaRing but noted that the medication has risks such as "thromboembolic and other vascular events," toxic shock syndrome and liver disease and should not be used by women with certain conditions or those over 35 who smoke. MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Denies Stay in "Naked" Short Sales Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a multimillion-dollar racketeering case over alleged illegal "naked" short sales of stock is about to start moving forward in New Jersey state court almost three years after it was filed. On March 9, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito denied a request to stay a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which had remanded the suit back to Morris County Superior Court based on a lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The defendants, which include Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Knight Capital Americas, UBS Securities and E-Trade Capital Markets, had applied for a stay pending decision on a petition for certiorari they plan to file. The plaintiffs in Manning v. Merrill Lynch are shareholders in the Escala Group, a New York-based international network of companies specializing in collectibles such as stamps, according to court documents. One of them, Greg Manning, of Boonton, New Jersey, claimed he owned 2.1 million shares at the relevant time, with lesser amounts held by the other plaintiffs, a Swedish individual and companies in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg, according to court documents. Plaintiffs allege in court documents that the defendants engaged in a massive manipulation of the market for the company's common stock over a four-day period in May 2006 and again from Dec. 1, 2006, through Jan. 9, 2007, trading a combined 182 million Escala shares. "Defendants substantially injured plaintiffs while at the same time reaping enormous profits by knowingly and intentionally creating, loaning and selling unauthorized fictitious and counterfeit shares of Escala stock, through various unlawful schemes and devices and by engaging in the unlawful practice of naked short sales," the complaint says. Short sales are sales of securities that the seller does not own but has borrowed in the expectation that when the short seller later acquires the stock for delivery to the buyer, the price will have fallen, with the short seller profiting from the drop. In naked short sales, which are not inherently illegal, the seller has not borrowed the stock or assured that it will be available later to deliver to the buyer within a required timeframe. Merrill Lynch and the other defendants conducted short sales of Escala stock without having reasonable grounds to believe the securities could be borrowed and become available for delivery, the complaint alleges. The complaint claims the defendants increased the pool of tradable Escala shares by "electronically manufacturing fictitious and unauthorized phantom shares" and using non-registered shares to dilute the fixed percentage owned by the plaintiffs to cause their shares to decline in value. They then allegedly sold or loaned the fictitious shares, "reaping significant monies in unlawful profits and fees" and covered up the scheme. The 10-count complaint, filed in state court in May 2012, alleged violation of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on predicate acts of New Jersey securities fraud and theft and state common-law claims, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment and interference with economic advantage. The defendants removed it to federal court in Newark in July 2012, asserting federal question jurisdiction on the grounds that the crux of the action was the violation of the federal regulatory scheme regarding short sales. In particular, they relied on Regulation SHO, adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005 to address problems with failure to deliver, including "potentially abusive 'naked' short-selling." New Jersey has no analogous provision. In December 2012, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hammer of the District of New Jersey agreed with the plaintiffs that the case should be remanded because it consisted of state law claims that could be decided "without addressing the embedded federal issues." U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District of New Jersey, however, rejected Hammer's recommendation and denied a remand in March 2013. The Third Circuit granted an interlocutory appeal and reversed Nov. 10, 2014, finding that the issue of whether naked short- selling violates New Jersey law need not be answered by reference to Regulation SHO. "Because the success of plaintiffs' state-law causes of action does not 'necessarily' depend upon the contents of federal law, this case does not 'arise under' the laws of the United States," wrote Judge D. Brooks Smith, joined by Judges Thomas Vanaskie and Dolores Sloviter. "The presence of an exclusive jurisdiction provision governing Regulation SHO does not change the analysis, as such provisions cannot independently generate jurisdiction." On Jan. 15, the Third Circuit denied rehearing en banc and refused a stay pending decision on the defendants' anticipated petition for certiorari. Subsequently, the case was sent back to the district court, which on Feb. 19 transmitted it to Morris County. On Feb. 24, the stay application was submitted to Justice Alito, who handles such filings within the Third Circuit. The defendants argued that their planned certiorari petition raised important issues, noting that Section 27 of the Exchange Act grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction of actions to enforce duties created by federal securities laws. They pointed out that the circuits had split on whether the section provides an independent basis for jurisdiction, with the Second and Third circuits saying it did not while the Fifth and Ninth held that it did. Allowing the litigation to go forward in New Jersey state court would cause irreparable harm to them and every other participant in the national securities market if the New Jersey court rules before the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the conflict on jurisdiction, the defendants contended. "The result would be inconsistent enforcement of securities regulations, as state courts begin to interpret issues that are supposed to be exclusively federal under Section 27," the defendants argued in court papers, adding that would be "a regulatory nightmare." In addition, the defendants said they would be denied their rights to a federal forum and the federal law's prohibition on discovery in securities cases until heightened pleading standards have been met. Justice Alito denied the application without explanation. John Schepisi and Gregory Dexter of Schepisi & McLaughlin in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, who along with Neal Flaster of Florham Park, New Jersey, represent Manning, said they expect the defendants will move to dismiss in state court. The case involves practices that are common in the industry, and the defendants are "so desperate to defend this proceeding because it will change the way they function," Mr. Schepisi said. The plaintiffs prefer to be in state court because they expect a quicker resolution there than in federal court, he said. The plaintiffs are claiming damages of about $50 million, which could be trebled under RICO. Merrill Lynch lawyer Andrew Frackman -- afrackman@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers referred a request for comment to Bank of America Merrill Lynch in-house counsel Brendan Dowd, who in turn referred the request to the company press office, which declined to comment. Rebecca Brazzano -- Rebecca.Brazzano@ThompsonHine.com -- of Thompson Hine in New York, representing National Financial Services, and Andrew Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., representing UBS, also declined to comment. Other defense counsel did not return calls seeking comment. The defendants have argued in motion papers that the plaintiffs are to blame for the stock drop, referring to a police raid on Escala's offices in Spain during an investigation into a pyramid scheme and SEC charges against Manning that ended with an order requiring him to pay nearly $670,000 in fines and barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years. MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Faces "Retta" Suit Over Product Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Retta, Kirsten Schofield, and Jessica Manire on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Millennium Products, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01801 (C.D. Cal., March 11, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's GT's Kombucha Beverages are misbranded and improperly labeled as antioxidant because they do not have even a single antioxidant nutrient that the Food and Drug Administration recognizes and approves. Millennium Products, Inc. is a California corporation located at 4646 Hampton St., Vernon, California 90058. It manufactures kombucha home brew beverages. The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com apersinger@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com NAPER GOLD: Faces "Huerta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Huerta, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Naper Gold Hospitality, LLC and Jayesh Patel, Case No. 1:15-cv-02191 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a hotel in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com NAT'L FOOTBALL: Jury Awards $75,000 to Ticketholder Plaintiffs -------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that neither the National Football League officials nor NFL's outside counsel from Haynes and Boone coached or counseled a contractor who worked on seating for Super Bowl XLV before he testified for a videotaped deposition played at a federal trial, according to Thad Behrens -- thad.behrens@haynesboone.com -- a partner in Dallas' Haynes and Boone, who represents the NFL. That trial ended with a jury verdict which awarded about $75,000 to ticketholder plaintiffs who had alleged breach of contract claims against the NFL; but the same jury nixed the plaintiffs' fraudulent inducement claims against the league. According to Mr. Behrens, the contractor, Scott Suprina, who worked on the stadium seating construction, clarified at a court- ordered post-verdict deposition, held in judge's chambers on March 17, that no one from Haynes and Boone or the NFL influenced him before his previous videotaped deposition. The court had scheduled Mr. Suprina's post-verdict deposition after the plaintiffs alleged that the NFL or its counsel had possibly influenced the contractor prior to his first deposition. The plaintiffs based their suspicions on an ESPN.com interview of Mr. Suprina posted March 11. At the post-verdict March 17 deposition, according to Mr. Behrens, Mr. Suprina stated specifically that he did not have a conversation with anyone from Haynes and Boone before a videotaped deposition that played at trial. Nor did he have a conversation about the first deposition prior to it taking place with anyone from the NFL. The judge asked Mr. Suprina if, given the opportunity, he would make any changes to his first deposition testimony. He said no, according to Behrens. ESPN Article In the ESPN.com article, posted March 11, Mr. Suprina was quoted as saying league officials encouraged him to stay quiet. "They encouraged me not to tell the whole story," ESPN quoted Mr. Suprina as saying. "They reinforced what my position should be before the deposition." According to the article, Mr. Suprina said that the NFL failed five of his employees on background checks, causing delays. "They never told us why," ESPN quoted Mr. Suprina as saying. After ESPN's publication of Mr. Suprina's interview, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking the opportunity to depose Mr. Suprina again. U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn agreed, but also ordered that the deposition take place under her supervision and that she would rule on any objections during the proceeding. Judge Lynn also ordered that "no party" may pay Mr. Suprina's expenses. She did not allow reporters to attend the deposition. Michael J. Avenatti of Newport Beach, California's Eagan Avenatti, who represents plaintiffs, did not return a call after Mr. Suprina's post-verdict deposition. Prior to it, Mr. Avenatti said: "We look forward to getting to the bottom of the statements made by Mr. Suprina in the ESPN article. If they are true, and we don't know yet if they are true, it will have serious ramifications for this case and the National Football League." Stephen Jones, a lawyer in Enid, Oklahoma, reportedly has begun representing Mr. Suprina. But Mr. Jones did not return a call to confirm that by press time. Mr. Jones previously defended Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted and executed for the 1995 truck bombing in Oklahoma City that left more than 100 dead. NESTLE PURINA: Faces "Malcom" Class Action Over Beneful Pet Food ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Newsham, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that a Massachusetts man has filed suit against pet food maker Nestle Purina alleging that its Beneful food kills dogs. It's the second potential class-action lawsuit filed against the company in less than a month. Rumors about the dog food line have swirled around the Internet since at least 2007, according to the website Snopes.com, and Nestle Purina has consistently asserted that its product is safe. The lawsuit, filed Feb. 27 in federal court in Boston, said that Saugus resident Paul Malcolm suffered "severe physical and emotional distress" after his Rotweiler-bulldog mix Ben died on February 26 after collapsing several times during the night of February 25 and the next morning. Although Malcolm rushed his 135-pound dog to Saugus Animal Hospital, the complaint says, the dog died en route. Ben had been fed a diet of Beneful Healthy Weight for three to four years, which the complaint asserts had a "direct and proximate" role in the dog's death. To support their claims, the attorneys offered 11 testimonials from pet owners culled from the Internet, as well as studies they claim prove the food to be toxic. Mr. Malcolm's attorneys said in a filing they were seeking over $5 million in damages for the entire class. Although they didn't know how many people were affected, dog food maker Nestle Purina has said 1.5 billion Beneful meals were served to dogs in 2014. Nestle Purina didn't immediately reply to a request for comment. In past statements, the company has said its own tests have shown the food to be safe, including batches tied to claims of pet deaths. In a statement made to Snopes in February, the company called the California suit "baseless" and said two similar lawsuits had been dismissed. "Bottom line: Consumers can continue to feed Beneful with total confidence," the company told Snopes. Earlier in February, a California man named Frank Lucido filed a class-action suit against Purina with similar allegations about the dog food after three of his dogs fell ill and one later died. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., a subsidiary of the Swiss conglomerate Nestle, is based in St. Louis, Mo. NESTLE PURINA: Parallel Litigation at Issue in "Adkins" ------------------------------------------------------- Frank P. Trapani and Peter J. Kreher of Kreher & Trapani, in article for The Legal Intelligencer, report that there is a split of authority over whether a federal district court that has preliminarily approved a class action settlement may enjoin class members from pursuing related litigation pending final approval of the settlement. In a recent opinion authored by Judge Frank Easterbrook, Adkins v. Nestle Purina PetCare, --- F.3d ---, (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered the fray and held emphatically that federal district courts lack the power to issue such injunctions, at least with respect to litigation pending in state court. This article explains the court's analysis and discusses its implications for counsel involved in parallel class action proceedings. The Parallel Litigation at Issue in 'Adkins' The plaintiffs in Adkins alleged that Nestle Purina PetCare Co. and another defendant sold dog treats that injured their dogs. They brought their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a nationwide class. The parties reached a settlement, which the district court preliminarily approved pending a fairness hearing on whether the settlement should receive final approval. The district court's preliminary approval order enjoined all class members from prosecuting litigation about the dog treats in any other forum. One case directly affected by the injunction was a statewide class action that had been pending in Missouri state court for two years and was scheduled for trial in May 2015. The certified representative of the Missouri class intervened in the federal case to challenge the injunction, but the federal judge declined to grant her any relief. Thus, she appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit's Decision The Seventh Circuit began its analysis by explaining that to obtain an injunction barring state-court litigation, the parties in the federal case had to satisfy both the traditional requirements for obtaining injunctive relief and the standards of the federal Anti-Injunction Act. Although the court suggested that the parties may not have satisfied the traditional requirements, it did not reach that issue because it concluded that the injunction violated the act. The act provides: "A court of the United States [e.g., a federal district court] may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly authorized by act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." There was not yet a final judgment in the federal case, and no act of Congress expressly authorized the federal court's injunction. Therefore, the parties in the federal case argued that the injunction was "necessary in aid of [the federal court's] jurisdiction," and pointed to supporting case law from other jurisdictions, including the Third Circuit. (See, e.g., In re Diet Drugs, 282 F.3d 220, 236 (3d Cir. 2002) ("If, for example, the possibility of an earlier state court judgment is disruptive to settlement negotiations in federal court, the existence of the state court action might sufficiently interfere with the federal court's flexibility to justify an injunction.").) The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument. "Jurisdiction," the court explained, "means adjudicatory competence," and it was undisputed that a trial or judgment in the Missouri litigation would not "imperil the district court's ability and authority to adjudicate the federal suit." Indeed, if the Missouri litigation caused the settlement in the federal case to collapse, the federal court's "adjudicatory competence" would not be affected, because "a need to adjudicate a suit on the merits after settlement negotiations fail does not undermine the nature or extent of a court's jurisdiction." The court acknowledged that enjoining the Missouri action might be "prudent" and "beneficial" for all class members. But in the court's view, the premise of any argument based on such concerns "is that [the act] allows whatever a federal court thinks is good litigation management." Such a broad interpretation, the court explained, is "not what 'necessary' means" in the act. The court noted, however, that injunctive relief might be permitted under the act to protect a final judgment resolving a federal class action. With respect to contrary authority from other jurisdictions, the court explained that "to the extent any of them supports injunctive relief before the settlement of a federal class action has become final, it fails to discuss the Supreme Court's understanding of 'jurisdiction' and predates its reminder in [Smith v. Bayer, 131 S. Ct. 2368 (2011)] that doubts must be resolved in favor of allowing state courts to proceed with litigation pending there." Implications Defendants in class action litigation are understandably reluctant to settle unless they can achieve something approaching complete peace; they generally are not looking to settle one class action merely to continue incurring the time and expense associated with litigating another arising out of the same facts. Thus, Adkins may encourage defendants to engage in global settlement discussions with class counsel in all related class actions, rather than relying on the preliminary approval of a federal settlement to stop related state court litigation in its tracks. In any such negotiations, Adkins may give class counsel in state court litigation increased leverage. Adkins may also encourage defendants and class counsel to accelerate the often lengthy time period between beginning negotiations and obtaining final approval of a settlement, so that they can use a final federal judgment to more quickly terminate unresolved state court litigation. In addition, defendants may ask the state court to stay any litigation pending before it on the ground that potentially complex and time-consuming state court proceedings might later be mooted by the final approval of a settlement in a parallel federal class action. Finally, it is important to remember that Adkins is binding authority only within the Seventh Circuit, and counsel in other circuits are likely to continue to seek injunctions at the preliminary approval stage. Counsel in such cases should be prepared to address whether Adkins is out of step with the majority view and whether the case law that Adkins rejected is consistent with recent Supreme Court precedent, including the Bayer decision. NESTLE PURINA: Says Beneful Pet Dog Class Action Baseless --------------------------------------------------------- Amy Cutler, writing for News10, reports that local pet owners are expressing their concerns after a class action lawsuit was filed against one of the country's most popular dog food brands. The lawsuit against the Nestle Purina Pet Care Company claims that Beneful dry kibble dog food contains toxins that are poisoning and even killing pets. A man in Amsterdam believes his dog may have been one of the victims. For John Lennon of Amstersdam, his dog Duncan was a member of the family. In December of 2013 Duncan unexpectedly became sick. He rushed him to an emergency clinic where he died soon after. Now, Lennon believes it was the Purina Beneful dog food he was feeding Duncan. "He was eating that dog food all this life and the next thing I know, he swells up and dies of internal bleeding," said Lennon. The lawsuit has caused many pet owners like Lennon to question the effects Purina's dog food may have had on their animals. The concern centers on the ingredient propylene glycol. Many have confused the ingredient for ethylene glycol, also known as antifreeze. Latham veterinarian Eileen Geagan says there's a misconception about what's in Beneful, saying the ingredients in Beneful are safe. "Propylene glycol is not ethylene glycol. They are not similar at all. Ethylene glycol is antifreeze." Ms. Gaegan says she has heard from local clients with concerns about Beneful. Ms. Geagan wants to remind pet owners that propylene glycol has been in pet foods for years and is approved by the FDA. "A lawsuit is a complaint that doesn't necessarily mean it's based in fact," said Ms. Geagan. "We believe the lawsuit is baseless, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and our brand. Beneful is backed by Purina's strict quality controls and comprehensive food safety program," said Purina in a statement. * * * WCPO.com reports that Purina fired back on March 2, following a class action lawsuit filed in February that said the Beneful brand dog food had killed multiple dogs. After all the concerns over its dog food, Purina says it will leave the product on the shelves. The company does not plan to back down. NOMAC DRILLING: "Norrell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Norrell and Gabriel Russell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nomac Drilling, L.L.C., and Seventy Seven Energy, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00266 (W.D. Okla., March 15, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are Oklahoma-based oilfield services companies with significant operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GTX 970, "Palagno" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Francis Palagano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nvidia Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01248 (E.D. Pa., March 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading representations of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 graphics processing units that it operate with a 4 gigabyte pool of video random access memory (VRAM), 64 Raster Operations Pipelines (ROP), and 2048 kilobytes (KB) of L2 cache capacity. Nvidia Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California. It is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling, and distributing computing equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite: 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschafer@lfsb.com OMNICARE INC: High Court Limits Suits Over Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a unanimous Supreme Court ruled on March 24 that investors can't sue companies for making misleading statements of opinion prior to a public stock offering just because those statements ultimately turn out to be wrong. But the ruling said some opinions in registration documents might omit important facts that could mislead investors, giving them a right to sue for securities fraud. The narrow opinion offered a limited victory to nursing home pharmacy -- Omnicare Inc. -- which was sued by two pension funds that bought stock when the company went public in 2005. Investors claimed the Cincinnati-based Omnicare mislead them when it said in registration documents that it "believed" its contracts with other companies were legal. Omnicare later paid $124 million to settle charges it gave kickbacks to facilities in exchange for patient referrals. A federal judge dismissed the investors' lawsuit, ruling they failed to show Omnicare knowingly made false statements. But a federal appeals court reversed, saying the plaintiffs only had to allege the statements were "objectively false." The high court said that wasn't the right standard. The justices sent the case back to lower courts to decide whether Omnicare's statement left out facts that would have been material to investors. Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said opinion statements are not automatically immune from liability. Investors could try to show that a company did not sincerely believe the opinions it made, or that they are based on inaccurate facts. Omnicare's statements essentially boiled down to "we believe we are obeying the law," Justice Kagan said. The pension funds did not dispute that Omnicare officials believed that, even though it was later discovered to be wrong. Justice Kagan said securities laws do not give investors "an invitation to Monday morning quarterback an issuer's opinions." But Justice Kagan said Omnicare could be liable if the registration statement left out critical facts, such as making an opinion about legal compliance without having consulted a lawyer, or in the face of its lawyer's contrary advice. "If a registration statement omits material facts about the issuer's inquiry into or knowledge concerning a statement of opinion, and if those facts conflict with what a reasonable investor would take from the statement itself," those omissions give investors a right to sue, Justice Kagan said. Justice Kagan said she sees no reason the court's ruling would make companies hesitant to disclose information useful to investors. "To the extent our decision [] chills misleading opinions, that is all to the good," Justice Kagan said, noting that Congress wanted investors to have better information, not simply more of it. OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt R. Yantz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., Michael A. Narachi and Joseph P. Hagan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00557 (S.D. Cal., March 11, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. headquartered in La Jolla, California and incorporated in Delaware, is a biopharmaceutical company developing pharmaceutical product for the treatment of obesity. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Richard Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com PHILADELPHIA, PA: Efforts to Settle Suit Over Forfeiture Laws Fail ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeremy Roebuck, writing for Philly.com, reports that efforts to settle a lawsuit that challenges the city's use of state civil forfeiture laws have failed, lawyers told a federal Judge on March 2. The announcement came a day after District Attorney Seth Williams laid out his most detailed defense yet of the controversial program -- one aimed at depriving drug dealers of cash and property, but increasingly under scrutiny for instances involving innocents evicted for only tangential connections to crime. "Drug dealers and the social rot that comes with their trade ruin neighborhoods -- they bring addiction, illegal firearms, death, despair, and destruction," Mr. Williams wrote in a column published Sunday in The Inquirer. "With our growing epidemic of prescription-drug and heroin overdoses, making it harder for dealers to operate by removing their profits and profit motive is a good thing." Darpana Sheth, a lawyer representing four Philadelphia homeowners whose houses were seized last year, declined on March 2 to discuss her settlement talks with the city. She told U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno only that "negotiations have broken down, and we intend to fully litigate this case." City lawyers said they will seek to have the class-action suit dismissed. Ms. Sheth's clients, who filed in August, had their houses threatened after relatives were accused of dealing drugs on their properties. None of the plaintiffs in the civil suit has been accused of a crime. That didn't stop authorities from evicting lead plaintiffs Christos and Markela Sourovelis from their house in Somerton after their 22-year-old son was arrested in May for selling marijuana. Since the Sourovelises filed their lawsuit, the city has dropped its forfeiture effort against their property but maintained it had every right to pursue it. Pennsylvania's civil forfeiture law allows authorities to go after properties suspected as criminal hot spots even if no one associated with them is charged with a crime. And unlike in a criminal case, where prosecutors must offer "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," authorities in forfeiture cases must only show it is more likely than not that the property was used in or obtained as a result of a crime. Property owners can challenge the seizures, but those efforts can take months and multiple court visits to resolve. The program has netted Philadelphia $64 million over the last decade -- much of which has gone to fund the district attorney's annual budget. Critics say those numbers create a clear profit motive for city prosecutors to pursue forfeiture actions. Mr. Williams downplayed those numbers on March 1 in his op-ed. He cited statistics indicating that Philadelphia prosecutors seize cash far more than they seek to take houses, and noted that the U.S. Justice Department remains a leading advocate of civil forfeiture -- seizing about $9 billion in 2012 alone. "Don't believe the claims that we are just snatching up property, mostly homes and autos, owned by random individuals who have nothing to do with drug dealing," Mr. Williams wrote of the Philadelphia program. He also cited a number of changes he has made to the program since taking office. They include shifting the focus of forfeiture actions toward cash over properties, tightening internal rules for house seizures, and working with legislators to improve the state's civil forfeiture laws. RATP: Paris Commuters Mull Class Action Over Transport System ------------------------------------------------------------- TheLocal.fr reports that a collective of commuters in the Paris region have launched a bid to take the capital's transport chiefs RATP to court over the daily travel misery they say they face on RER trains. The class action suit, which is the first of its kind involving a group of rail passengers, focuses on the problems of the RER A, the capital's busiest line that runs from east to west and passes through the capital's financial district of La Defense. But those behind the lawsuit say the whole network is failing the public. Travellers on the line face regular disruption and only last month The Local reported how a wildcat strike by train drivers led to near pandemonium during rush hour. The class action suit is being led by banker Jean-Louis Roura, who is hoping the consumer group UFC-Que Choisir will back their lawsuit, as the law requires. If that happens they may get their date in court with RATP. A class action lawsuit allows groups of individuals to collectively sue a defendant or group of defendants, without separately having to file a case and hire a lawyer. But each one must be backed by a recognized consumer group. "The state of the French economy is not good," he says. "People are facing difficulties finding jobs and keeping them. Today I had two messages from people who both told me they lost their jobs because they were late due to public transport problems. "The rail transport network in the Paris region is in a state of failure and it impacts on people's ability to find and keep jobs. "Despite all this the government and regional authorities remain deaf to these concerns. The politicians are completely disconnected from the concerns of citizens. "Over the last two years, the problems have increased. It's not just the RER A, but the whole network. Trains are cancelled and services are cut or delayed. Then there are problems with trains breaking down and problems we don't even understand. It's a nineteenth century transport system that is not fit for the 21st century. "Almost every day there's a case of a driver who doesn't turn up for work, which causes delays. If that was in any other job they would be sacked. "The authorities talk about the project Grand Paris [the ambitious transport plan for the greater Paris region], but that won't be until 2030 or 2050. We need a solution for the commuters today, who can't even get to work. We are angry and there's no response. "The government talks about the financial district at La Defense being the biggest in Europe, but people struggle to get there on time. Ten-minute journeys are taking up to 40 minutes on a daily basis. "The network needs massive investment. Commuters are told that works are going on but we never see any improvement. "This is a cause that everyone is talking about. It's on the television and in the press so that's already a success, but now we want the politicians to wake up. There are elections coming up and they have to realize commuters are electors. "The aim of this class action group is not to obtain money it's just to show transport chiefs they have a problem and they need to fix it." RAWLINGS COMPANY: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Parker Waichman LLP said that on February 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Wurtz v. Rawlings Co., LLC, 2014 WL 3746801, Second Circuit 2014. A Writ of Certiorari is an order under which a higher court, in this case, the Supreme Court, reviews a lower court decision, Parker Waichman LLP notes. (Certiorari denied: 14-487 Rawlings Company, LLC, et al. v. Wurtz, Megan, et al.) On July 31, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a decision that New York State's anti-subrogation law, which extinguished the rights of private health insurers to seek reimbursement for medical benefits paid out of a tort settlement, was not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and that the law was found applicable to health insurers providing ERISA coverage. The class action lawsuit was originally filed in New York State Supreme Court but was removed by Defendants to federal court where the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on ERISA preemption. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the matter to the District Court in holding that the plaintiffs' claims were not subject to complete ERISA preemption. The Supreme Court's decision to decline to hear Defendants' appeal of the Court of Appeal's decision allows for the class action lawsuit to proceed. The class action alleges violations of New York State's anti-subrogation law by insurers who recovered for medical benefits paid on behalf of injured plaintiffs from their tort settlements. (Meghan Wurtz, Mindy Burnovski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Rawlings Company, LLC, Oxford Health Plans (N.Y.), Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Defendants; No. 13-1695-cv; in the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit) "These insurers must now decide if they seek to continue to burden the courts with frivolous motions that do not have any legal basis," said Melanie Muhlstock, Managing Attorney for Parker Waichman LLP. This decision is a major victory for both ERISA participants and their beneficiaries, notes Parker Waichman LLP. "We are happy that the justice system seeks to put an end to these insurers' attempts at stopping lawsuits brought by individuals who have suffered from various significant injuries by further seeking financial gain at additional cost to these allegedly injured parties," said Ms. Muhlstock. RAYONIER INC: Investors' Suits Consolidated Into Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Ronnie Greene, writing for The Associated Press, reports that while preparing a run for the White House, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made headlines by resigning from several corporate positions at year's end. Less noticed: One of the companies where he served on the board, Florida timber company Rayonier Inc., faced a flurry of lawsuits not long before his exit. One case alleges a company facility in Georgia violated the Clean Water Act and contaminated the Altamaha River, and five others suits filed by investors contend the company made false and misleading statements that caused them losses. All are active in court. Gov. Bush is not named as a defendant in the cases, but he is listed among Rayonier board members in court papers filed in the Georgia environmental case. The lawsuits could renew questions about the former Florida governor's stewardship in the corporate world as he aspires to step back into public office. At least four times, Bush served on the board of companies sued by investors or the government. "You are not going to find with board members a lot of successful lawsuits," said Elizabeth Nowicki, an Albany Law School professor and former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer. Still, she added: "The buck stops with the board members." Gov. Bush is "proud of his service on Rayonier's board," said his spokeswoman, Kristy Campbell. A spokesman for Rayonier, Mike Bell, said there was no environmental harm. Both Mr. Bell and Ms. Campbell said the company's board took decisive action when the financial issues surfaced. Gov. Bush, appointed to Rayonier's board in 2008, resigned effective Dec. 31. He earned nearly $198,000 in compensation from Rayonier in 2013, $99,750 in cash and $98,149 in stock value and dividends, the company said. Just before his departure, investors filed the first of five securities cases alleging Rayonier made public misstatements that caused them significant losses and damages. The five cases -- filed in November and December -- have been consolidated into one class-action lawsuit in federal court in Jacksonville, Florida, where Rayonier is based. The Clean Water Act case, filed in federal court nearly a year ago, contends that a Rayonier paper mill in Jesup, Georgia, a small city four hours downstate from Atlanta, fouled the Altamaha River. Altamaha Riverkeeper Inc., a Georgia environmental nonprofit, filed the lawsuit and alleged company operations harmed a waterway that is home to 120 species of rare or endangered animals. In 2008, responding to fishermen and others complaining of a smelly brown discharge from its mill, Rayonier entered into a pact with state regulators to spend millions on anti-pollution controls. A spokesman with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Kevin Chambers, said Rayonier is in compliance with that consent order. Yet the lawsuit cited an "ongoing environmental calamity" and accused Rayonier of discharging more than 50 million gallons daily of "highly discolored, inescapably foul-smelling effluent" into the river. The other cases involve investors -- including the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund and others -- who said Rayonier's financial statements in 2014 overstated the company's timber inventory and income from operations. Rayonier restated its financial statements in November 2014, citing errors, and a company senior vice president resigned. The day the news broke, company shares fell almost 15 percent. Rayonier and several executives, but not Gov. Bush, are defendants. "The board, with management and independent advisers, moved quickly to conduct its review and took swift and decisive actions to realign Rayonier's strategy and operations," said Ms. Campbell, Gov. Bush's spokeswoman. The Rayonier case is not the first time Bush has served on the board of a private company sued by investors in federal court. Others include sanitation company Swisher Hygiene and, years earlier, credit card protection company Ideon Group Inc. Bush also served on the board of InnoVida Holdings, a Miami Beach company that won a $10 million loan from the government's Overseas Private Investment Corp. to help build prefabricated housing for victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Gov. Bush served on the board when the loan was approved in January 2010. Federal prosecutors and the SEC later charged that InnoVida's owner, Claudio Osorio, defrauded investors. Mr. Osorio pleaded guilty in 2013 to wire fraud and money laundering and got a 12- 1/2-year prison sentence. Gov. Bush left InnoVida's board later in 2010 and was not accused of wrongdoing. REDFLEX: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Red-Light Camera Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Shea Johnson, writing Daily Press, reports that A California appeals court on March 3 affirmed a San Bernardino County judge's 2013 decision that a class-action lawsuit "lacked standing" in alleging Victorville's Redflex red light camera system violated due process rights. In their unpublished opinion, a three-judge panel in the state's Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, said that "the Complaint failed to state a cause of action for violation of civil rights or declaratory relief, and (the) plaintiffs have not sought leave to amend." Victorville-based Attorney Bob Conaway, who filed the class-action suit in 2012 and filed the subsequent appeal, said on March 3 that he hadn't yet received word of the decision, but he nonetheless spoke about the issue. "Is this the Big Brother state saying, 'shut up and pay your fine?' " he asked. But Mr. Conaway, a former 8th Congressional District candidate, also framed the ruling as having the potential to push the shift to alternatives. "I don't know that it's a setback. I think it's maybe a refocus," he said. "I think it has some benefits. It will allow people to decide if this issue is important enough to us. Do we have the moxy and the smarts to sit down and really talk?" Alternatives, he said, should include legislative changes, where municipalities review "checks and balances" of the systems or enact local initiatives to block the cameras altogether. In December, Mr. Conaway had been seeking to test his latest argument: the assumption that red light camera images were really automatic and not human influenced. "That is not a trivial distinction considering what is known about the non-man-caused failures of software being used," he wrote in a Dec. 9 brief to the court. He had sought additional time to gather evidence four months before the March 3 decision, which ultimately sided with the earlier conclusion that the lawsuit "lacked standing to maintain the complaint or any cause of action therein." RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, reports that The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. LLC, Marriott International Inc. and several associated companies were hit with a putative class action in a California state court alleging that the hotel chains shorted its workers on wages and failed to provide proper meal breaks, among a number of violations of California labor laws. Plaintiffs Lavina Sanchez and Elvia Puentes alleged that nonexempt hourly workers at Marriott International's The Ritz-Carlton hotels, including approximately seven locations in California, were not paid for all hours worked nor were they paid for overtime or given legally required meal breaks, according to the lawsuit dated Feb. 25, 2015. The plaintiffs, both residents of Los Angeles County, California, also alleged that hotel workers were not provided with complete and accurate wage statements and did not receive timely payment of all unpaid wages upon termination, both in violation of the California Labor Code. "The plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that class members were not paid for all hours worked because all hours worked were not recorded . . . that defendants knew or should have known that plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages for overtime compensation," the complaint alleged. The suit also seeks damages under California's Private Attorney General Act of 2004, which allows private citizens to pursue penalties on behalf of the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency. "Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private attorney general, seeks assessment and collection of unpaid wages and civil penalties for plaintiff, all other aggrieved employees and the state of California against defendants, in addition to other remedies," the complaint said. The suit brings a total of seven causes of action and seeks damages for unpaid wages, penalties, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees for up to $5 million; however, the complaint said that the plaintiff reserves the right to seek a larger amount based on new information and discovery. Representatives of Marriott International and The Ritz-Carlton did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. Marriott International is a global lodging company with more than 3,800 lodging properties in 74 countries and territories and operates several well-known brands, including luxury hotels The Ritz-Carlton, Bulgari and JW Marriott, in addition to other brands, including Marriott Hotels, Courtyard by Marriott, SpringHill Suites and Fairfield Inn and Suites. The plaintiffs are represented by Carney R. Shegerian -- cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com -- of Shegerian & Associates Inc. The case is Lavina Sanchez and Elvia Puentes v. The Ritz Carlton et al., case number BC573996, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. ROYAL CANIN: Faces "Fauley" Suit Over Unsolicited Facsimiles ------------------------------------------------------------ Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02170 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. is a manufacturers of all natural dog and cat food. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com SAKS FIFTH: Faces Class Action Over Restrictive Return Policy ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a Saks Fifth Avenue Inc. customer on March 2 defended her proposed class action alleging the retailer violated California law by failing to properly post its return and refund policies at its stores, arguing that she wouldn't have purchased items from Saks had she known how restrictive the company's return policy is. Named plaintiff Jennifer Shaouli filed a brief in California federal court opposing Saks' bid to dismiss her complaint. Ms. Shaouli disputes Saks' claim that she lacks standing to bring her case, saying her buying habits were directly influenced by the company's "deceptive business practices." "Saks mislead plaintiff and putative class members into purchasing products that they would not have purchased, would have purchased less of or paid less for such products, believing that such products were not subjected to such restrictive return and refund policies," the brief said. "Logically, and somewhat obviously, a product's present or future property interest is diminished when its liquidity is encumbered by restrictions unknown to the consumer at the time of purchase." According to the complaint, Ms. Shaouli purchased shoes at a Saks located in Beverly Hills in January 2014. Ms. Shaouli claims that Saks' return policy was not posted at the entrance to the store. Saks later informed Ms. Shaouli that it would no longer accept her returns because her account had a high return rate. The company restricts returns if it finds based on a customer's shopping history an "unreasonable return pattern." "Had Saks properly displayed its return policy as required by law, plaintiff would not have purchased Saks' products, would have purchased less of the products and/or would have paid less for the products," the lawsuit says. Ms. Shaouli filed the proposed class action in December. She is seeking to represent a nationwide class of Saks shoppers and a separate class of California shoppers. The company has filed its motion to dismiss Ms. Shaouli's complaint. Ms. Shaouli is represented by L. Paul Mankin of the Law Offices of L. Paul Mankin IV. Saks is represented by David Fink -- dfink@kelleydrye.com -- and Ken Kronsta -- kkronstadt@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. The case is Jennifer Shaouli v. Saks Fifth Avenue Inc., case number 2:14-cv-09590, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. SANDHURST TRUSTEES: Class Action Over Wickham Collapse May Expand ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Spits, writing for Money Management, reports that the potential class action against Sandhurst Trustees may expand out to represent up to 180 investors, none of whom have received any funds since the failure and closure of Wickham Securities in early 2013. Shine Lawyers financial services class actions department manager Jan Saddler said that a decision by the Federal Court of Australia to order Sandhurst to hand over documents would be instrumental in deciding if a class action would proceed. Mr. Saddler said it was expected the documents -- 39 in all covering financial, director's and liquidator's reports and trustee agreements -- would be received within a month and then a further three to six months would be required to assess them and see if investors had grounds to seek compensation from Sandhurst. Sandhurst acted as the trustee for failed property lender Wickham Securities which was owned and operated by Bradley Sherwin. Mr. Sherwin was banned by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission for a period of two years and seven months from September 2013. The ban corresponded with the period remaining on his bankruptcy and is set to end in April 2016. Mr. Saddler said Shine expected the class action to grow to include 150 to 180 investors after having grown from 80 in 2013 to 100 at present but stated the record keeping of Wickham Securities was poor and identifying investors, sums invested and levels of losses had been difficult. The class action would seek to reclaim as much as possible for investors with Mr. Saddler stating that liquidators PBB Advisory had estimated total losses to initially be between $28 million and $32 million with investor losses at around $27 million but this was subject to change as Shine made contact with more Wickham investors. According to Mr. Saddler the case was not brought to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) as Wickham Securities was not a member of the service and any potential claims against Sandhurst of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and alleged breaches of the Corporations Act were not covered by FOS terms of service. Sandhurst was initially ordered to hand over the relevant documents in a court ruling brought by two Wickham Securities investors but appealed against the ruling, which was dismissed. However Sandhurst can still appeal to the High Court of Australia if it receives a special leave application to do so. SEARS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Wrongful Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------- Business Vancouver reports that a former employee is suing Sears Canada in a class action for wrongful dismissal just more than a year after its doomed home services division went into receivership. Leonard Kenneth Tonn filed a notice of civil claim in BC Supreme Court on February 17. Mr. Tonn claims he worked for Sears Home Services, which Sears had been priming to sell since 2012. Sears Canada spun off the division and handed it over to non-party SHS Services Management Inc., which was not run by Sears, but bought a license to use the name under a "Branded Concession Agreement" relying on Sears Canada's annual sales estimates of $208 million. Sears Canada also lent the firm more than $5.6 million for the division's assets, according to the lawsuit. The new company was also bound to offer jobs to the division's workers, 92 of whom worked in British Columbia at the time, the suit says. The deal closed on March 2, 2013, but less than a year later, the company went into receivership after "experiencing significant financial difficulties." Mr. Tonn's complaint says that revenues were "substantially less than represented by Sears" and that the retailer demanded full repayment of its loan in September 2013, six months after the deal closed. The company went into receivership on December 13, 2013, and the doomed firm claimed the "Branded Concession Agreement" made SHS "not a viable business" and had "dismal financial prospects" while Sears Canada refused to provide further financing. Sears Canada was also one of two secured creditors of SHS, claiming indebtedness of about $2 million. The same day the Ontario Superior Court of Justice appointed a receiver, all the company's employment contracts were terminated without cause, notice or compensation, according to the claim. Mr. Tonn seeks class certification, and unspecified general, special and punitive damages for wrongful dismissal. The allegations have not been tested or proven in court and the defendant had not filed a response by press time. SIEMENS: Faces Suit in Brazil Over Alleged in Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------- Stan Lehman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a Brazilian judge has accepted charges filed by state prosecutors against 11 companies accused of forming a cartel to raise prices on the construction and upkeep of subway and train systems in the state of Sao Paulo. A press officer of the prosecutor's office said on March 21 that Judge Marcos Pimentel Tamassia accepted the charges that involve contracts signed between 2000 and 2007. She spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to comment the case. Among the companies charged are Germany's Siemens, CAF of Spain, Mitsui of Japan, Bombardier of Canada and Alstom of France. Prosecutors have said that the companies were involved in price fixing, and that those that won bids then contracted the losing companies to provide services. Brazil's antitrust agency, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense has said that the companies used several anticompetitive strategies, such as the prearrangement of offers tendered in bidding processes. At times, it said, the cartel would also determine which company would win a bid by allowing only one to tender an offer. In 2013, Siemens struck a plea agreement with authorities and denounced the existence of the price-fixing scheme. SILVERBRICK GROUP: Faces "Byers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Ray Byers and Bert Lagasse, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. Silverbrick Group, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00370 (D. Conn., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Silverbrick Group, LLC owns and operates apartment buildings located in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: William G. Madsen, Esq. MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC 402 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 246-2466 Facsimile: (860) 246-1794 E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com SONY PICTURES: Former Employees File Amended Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Ted Johnson, writing for Variety.com, reports that nine former Sony employees have filed an amended class action lawsuit against Sony Pictures Entertainment, alleging that the studio failed to take adequate safeguards to protect personal information that was exposed in the hacking attack last year. "Following the breach, SPE has focused on its own remediation efforts, not on protecting employees' sensitive records or minimizing the harm to its employees and their families," states the amended complaint, filed on March 2 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. "Rather, SPE has focused on securing its own intellectual property from pirates and a public relations campaign directed at controlling damage to SPE associated with the release of embarrassing internal emails." The lawsuit is similar to individual suits filed by the nine ex-employees in December and January, albeit going into additional detail about the breach. The plaintiffs claim that the hacking has left them vulnerable to identity theft, tax fraud, and financial theft because their Social Security numbers and other information has been made "publicly available to anyone with an Internet connection." The class action asks the court to require SPE to "implement and maintain security practices to comply with regulations designed to prevent and remedy these types of breaches," as well as restitution and damages. A spokeswoman for SPE did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Among other things, the lawsuit points to reports that the breach exposed more than 47,000 Social Security numbers, including 15,200 from current and former employees. Some of the employees last worked at the studio as long ago as 1955, the suit claims, raising concerns about data retention policies. It also points to reports that the initial leak included a spreadsheet that listed the names, birthdates and Social Security numbers of 3,803 employees. And it contends that hackers used the stolen data to threaten employees and their families with physical harm. The lawsuit contends that the studio's security practices fell below "prudent industry standards." It cites, among other things, an audit by PricewatershouseCoopers in September 2014 that found gaps in the company's monitoring of its systems. It also claims that SPE has yet to notify all of its former employees about the breach and the extent of their data that was exposed. Last month, SPE's legal team responded to the first lawsuit filed related to the hacking attack, a claim from ex-employees Michael Corona and Christina Mathis. The studio said that the breach was "massive and unprecedented," but also claimed that the plaintiffs did not having standing. "There are no allegations of identity theft, no allegations of fraudulent charges, and no allegations of misappropriation of medical information," Sony said in a brief filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. "Instead, the plaintiffs assert a broad range of common-law and statutory cases of action based on their alleged fear of an increased risk of future harm, as well as expenses they claim to have incurred to prevent that future harm." Sony contends that the plaintiffs fall short of the requirement that they suffer "some concrete and particularized injury" before a lawsuit is filed. In the amended complaint, Mr. Corona contends that he has incurred out-of-pocket costs of $700 per year in identity theft protection, which thwarted an attempt by an identity thief to open a new bank account. Ms. Mathis claims that she incurred costs of $300. Although Sony has offered identity theft protection to employees and ex-employees for 12 months, she claims that she will spend time and money for the rest of her life trying to contain the impact of the data breach. STEWART'S SHOPS: Class Action Over Unpaid Wages Moves Forward ------------------------------------------------------------- E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP on March 4 disclosed that current and former employees have filed a proposed class action seeking in excess of $20 million dollars in alleged unpaid wages, punitive damages and statutory penalties against Stewart's Shops Corp. Stewart's Shop has denied liability in the case and promptly filed a motion to dismiss all claims against it. On March 2, 2015 Federal District Court Judge Thomas J. McAvoy issued a Decision on the motion. Judge McAvoy closely examined the Complaint and decided that the majority of the claims will proceed to the next phase of the litigation. These claims include: overtime pay; minimum wage pay; time worked off the clock (before and after shift); call-in pay; uniform maintenance pay; and, violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act for failing to provide appropriate wage disclosures. The proposed class action case is venued in the Northern District of New York Federal District Court (Docket Number 7:14-cv-33). The case seeks class action status for approximately 4500 current and former employees of Stewart's Shops who allege they were deprived of pay for hours worked. To date 30 individuals have joined the suit but that number is expected to grow if the Court grants permission to send out a Class Notice to all potentially affected current and former employees. Ryan M. Finn, Esq. -- rfinn@joneshacker.com -- of E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP -- http://www.joneshacker.com-- represents the proposed class and has stated that he is very pleased with the Court's decision. "This is a great decision for our clients. We will continue to fight for justice for our clients." SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Illegally Records Calls, "Gu" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Qi Gu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., a Michigan Corporation and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01844 (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful conduct of failing to disclose intentional recording of telephone communications. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. is a Michigan pharmaceutical company that does business in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com dreid@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com T & S ROOFING: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Acosta Flores v. T & S Roofing Systems, Inc. a Florida Profit Corporation, and Louis E. Toledo, Case No. 1:15-cv-21003 (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. T & S Roofing Systems, Inc. is a residential and commercial roofing company having their main place of business in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Brian Roller, Esq. SCHWARTZ ZWEBEN ROBINS BURNETTE & ROLLER 3876 Sheridan Street Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 966-2483 Facsimile: (954) 374-6974 E-mail: broller@szalaw.com TAKATA CORP: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Defective Airbags ------------------------------------------------------- Dorry Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00303 (M.D. Fla., March 11, 2015), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, they violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Matthew Stephens, Esq. MCCALLUM,METHVIN &TERRELL, P.C. 2101 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939- 0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: mstephens@mmlaw.net - and - Diandra Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq. ZARZAUR,MUJUMDAR &DEBROSSE 2332 Second Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 E-mail: fuli@zarzaur.com TARGET CORP: Judge Approves $10MM Data Breach Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Steve Karnowski and Michelle Chapman, writing for The Associated Press, report that a Minnesota judge has endorsed a settlement in which Target Corp. will pay $10 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over a massive data breach in 2013. U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson said at a hearing on March 19 in St. Paul, Minnesota, that he would grant preliminary approval of the settlement in a written order, probably later in the day. The move will allow people to begin filing claims ahead of another hearing for final approval, which he'll hold in late October or early November. People affected by the breach can file for up to $10,000 with proof of their losses, including unauthorized charges, higher fees or interest rates, and lost time dealing with the problem. "Target really needs to be commended for being willing to step up," Judge Magnuson said. Target's data breach in 2013 exposed details of as many as 40 million credit and debit card accounts and hurt its holiday sales that year. The company offered free credit monitoring for affected customers and overhauled its security systems. The settlement would also require Minneapolis-based Target to appoint a chief information security officer, keep a written information security program and offer security training to its workers. It would be required to maintain a process to monitor for data security events and respond to such events deemed to present a threat. "We are pleased to see the process moving forward and look forward to its resolution," Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said in an emailed statement. Claims will mostly be submitted and processed online through a dedicated website. Vincent Esades, an attorney for Target customers, said after the hearing that the settlement could end up costing Target $25 million, when attorneys' fees and administrative costs are added in. He said consumers will likely be able to start filing claims around April 30, and 100 million people may be eligible. Consumers can claim up to $10,000 if they can document unreimbursed losses; after those claims are paid out, the rest of the settlement funds will be divided among consumers who state under oath that they suffered a qualifying loss, but don't have documentation. People who've already been fully reimbursed aren't eligible, he said. Mr. Esades said customers who opt out of the settlement have the right to object. Since the funds can't be paid out until all appeals are resolved, he said, the earliest that customers would see any money would be early next year. Target attorney David McDowell declined to comment after the hearing. The chain has worked hard to lure back customers that were hesitant to shop there after the incident. Over the 2014 holiday season, Target offered free shipping on all items. It recently announced that it was cutting its minimum online purchase to qualify for free shipping in half to $25. And on March 18 the retailer said it will now allow returns for up to a year for its private and exclusive brands. Earlier in March, Target said it would lay off about 1,700 people, eliminate another 1,400 unfilled positions and cut up to $2 billion in costs. It will also focus more on technology to boost online sales growth. T he latter move will involve about $1 billion aimed at beefing up business from shoppers who are more likely to shop online. TCWD LIDO: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose I. Lopez, Fausto Marmol, Nelson Marmol, Jose S. Velasquez, Alfonson C. Villagran, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TCWD Lido Rest Inc. d/b/a Olive Oils et al, Docket No. 2:15-cv-01283 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. TCWD Lido Rest Inc. owns and operates Olive Oils restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Saul D. Zabell, Esq. ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Telephone: (631) 589-7242 Facsimile: (631) 563-7475 E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com TEXCALE INC: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- German Flores, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Texcale Inc., Mecate Inc., and Albert Lucero, individually and/ jointly d/b/a Joe Jr's Restaurant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01846 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 167 3rd Ave., New York, NY 10003. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Travis Brown, Esq. Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (212) 725-7272 Facsimile: (212) 488-4848 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com TIFFANY'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Mayra Moreno, writing KENS-TV, reports that two exotic dancers who sued their employer alleging that Tiffany's Cabaret violates minimum-wage laws go to court on March 2. The club, a Tiffany's Cabaret, has at least two lawsuits against it for wage and hour violations, according to the San Antonio Express-News. Dancers Alexis Alex and Nicolette Prieto brought their original suit in August 2013. But several other dancers who wanted to add their names to the complaint were not allowed, so Samantha Marez and Veronica Michelle Ayala filed their own federal labor lawsuit in July asking that it be certified as a class action. In December, a federal magistrate judge allowed a conditional class action, saying strippers who had worked for Tiffany's since July 1, 2011, could join the second suit. "The club claims that the tips the ladies get for the dances are a service charge that the club charges," making the women contractors rather than employees, said Martin Shellist, the Houston-based lawyer representing Alex and Prieto. The lawsuit heading to court Monday claims that Tiffany's didn't pay the dancers at all. As with restaurant wait staff, even a dancer who is considered an employee probably wouldn't receive the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Instead, Texas state law allows tipped employees to receive an hourly wage of $2.13 with the understanding that $5.12 of their tips will be credited toward the federal minimum. But Alex and Prieto, who no longer work at the club, claim that they were not allowed to keep all of what they considered tips and Tiffany's considered service charges. Instead they contend they had to give part of the total to the house deejay and the club manager, another violation of wage law, Mr. Shellist said. In a partial summary judgment in November, a federal judge in New York ruled that Rick's Cabaret in Manhattan owed $10.8 million in back pay to almost 2,000 dancers after failing to pay them an hourly wage and improperly retaining tips. That determination, not yet final, could significantly increase after a trial scheduled later this year. Representatives of Tiffany's Cabaret did not respond to requests for comment but have denied the allegations in previous court hearings, saying that any disputes should be handled under arbitration agreements that their employees signed. "I think we have a lot of good evidence," Mr. Shellist said. "We feel good about the case. We are ready for trial, (and) we are curious to see what Tiffany's says." TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Actions Over Guardrail System ------------------------------------------------------------- WAVY.com reports that more lawsuits are being filed, as the study of Trinity Industries crash test results for their ET-Plus guardrail system continues. But now the company has filed documents of its own, defending its product that lines Virginia roads. Three class action lawsuits have now been filed against Trinity Industries, including the latest one from Stratford, Ontario in Canada for $500 million. But the embattled company is also striking back at experts who are calling their product and their yet-to-be-released crash test results into question. In February, 10 On Your Side said the Federal Highway Administration said the guardrail end treatments that have been called potentially deadly and dangerous passed the first round of tests. On that same day, though, court documents were filed with claims that an expert had reviewed photographs and videos of the next set of tests and concluded, "The deformation of the driver's side door not only could have caused disabling injuries, but showed a propensity to penetrate the vehicle and cause devastating injuries." Trinity has responded by filing court documents of its own in Texas. A section of Trinity's legal filings is as follows: Dr. Coon's opinions cannot be based on the crash test report, photographs, videos or any of the actual data collected in connection with the crash test since these materials have not yet been released by Southwest Research Institute. Drawing conclusions without access to the complete crash test data or test report, as Dr. Coon has done, is premature, scientifically unsound and irresponsible. All of Dr. Coon's opinions are unreliable because they lack any basis in the technical data and information necessary for properly analyzing a crash test. Trinity Industries continues to deny claims that their guardrails are unsafe in any way, even as more lawsuits assert that they misled customers by not disclosing secret modifications that they made. Virginia was the first state to sue Trinity over these guardrails in December. Attorney General Mark Herring said he determined, "the company's fraud against the Virginia Department of Transportation is real and has been continuous and pervasive" at the expense of the taxpayer. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail System Meets Safety Standards ----------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Stengle, writing for The Associated Press, reports that federal officials said on March 13 that a guardrail system found on many U.S. highways met safety standards in crash tests that followed accusations they have speared cars. Forty states have stopped installing the guardrails, and Trinity Industries Inc. stopped shipping them after a Texas jury found in October that the company had failed to tell regulators about design changes made in 2005. Guardrails are designed to crumple and absorb impact, but critics said the cost-cutting design change made it more likely the guardrails would spear cars that crash into either end of the guardrail. The jury verdict in October centered on the company's failure to tell regulators about the changes, not whether the guardrails were safe. Trinity faces several wrongful-death and injury lawsuits. The Dallas-based company said it would decide soon whether to resume shipping the guardrails after the March 13 findings from the Federal Highway Administration. The agency said Trinity's ET-Plus systems passed the last four of eight safety tests. The agency had already announced last month that the guardrails passed the first four tests. In the tests, the guardrails did not penetrate the cars, although in one case the driver's door was crumpled. The highway agency said an independent safety reviewer judged that the driver in such a wreck would have been unlikely to be seriously injured. In a letter to state highway officials, a Trinity executive and an official for Texas A&M University, which helped design the ET-Plus, anticipated that the last test would be criticized even though the guardrails passed. In crashes at 60 mph, extensive damage to the outside of vehicles should be expected, they said. There are an estimated 200,000 ET-Plus units along the nation's roadways. Highway agency officials said their analysis of the guardrails is not finished. Officials from the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials are still looking at other crash data collected involving the guardrails. "The analysis we are conducting is aimed at providing every possible assurance that this device and devices like it down the road are performing as designed," Federal Highway Administration Deputy Administrator Gregory Nadeau said, adding, "We are going to continue to drill down and provide as much data as we possibly can to give decisions makers, in the states especially, the information they need to render appropriate judgment for this and other road safety hardware." He said that because of the successful crash tests, the ET-Plus will remain eligible for federal funding. Some lawmakers have been critical of FHWA's evaluation of the guardrails, including U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal. The Connecticut Democrat accused the Federal Highway Administration of having "an "unacceptable pattern of inadequate oversight" and called the crash tests "sham tests rife with flaws." He said the agency allowed the manufacturer to apply "older, less rigorous testing standards." However, administration spokesman Neil Gaffney defended the tests, saying the agency used criteria that were the safety standards at the time the guardrails were developed. The device met the crash test criteria and developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that is followed by individual states. Texas is among states that had suspended any new installations of the ET-Plus. A Texas Department of Transportation spokesman said on March 13 that the agency was waiting further analysis by highway officials before deciding what to do next. The jury in October found that Trinity should to pay at least $175 million for failing to tell regulators about the design change. Following the verdict, which Trinity said it would appeal, the judge ordered mediation between Trinity and the whistleblower who filed the lawsuit, Virginia guardrail installer Joshua Harman. Talks have not yet produced a settlement. If they fail, the judge could triple the damages. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Antman Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Sasha Antman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., and Does 1-50, Case No. 3:15- cv-01175 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to secure and safeguard its drivers' personally identifiable information including names, driver's license numbers, and other personal information. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that develops, markets, and operates a mobile-app-based transportation network. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Keith Custis, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 1016 Palm Ave. West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com keith@custis-law.com UNITED RECOVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Rodriguez, Franklin White and Christopher Temple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Recovery Systems, L.P., John Does 1-10 and ABC INC. 1-10, Case No. 4:15-cv-00662 (S.D. Tex., March 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, other wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. United Recovery Systems, L.P. is a collection agency and an accounts receivables management company that provided third-party debt collection services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles W. Branham III, Esq. DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP 3900 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75226 Telephone: (214) 722-5990 Facsimile: (214) 722-5991 E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com - and - Jason T. Brown,Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com VECTREN CORPORATION: Sued Over Retirement Medical Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------- Donald B. Gray, et al., on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan and Vectren Corporation as plan administrator for the plan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00031 (S.D. Ind., March 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by concealing material information about yearly pay credits, yearly interest credits and yearly contributions to post- retirement medical benefits. Vectren Corporation owns and operates energy holding company headquartered in Evansville, Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lane C. Siesky, Esq. Karolina Viehe, Esq. SIESKY & VIEHE, PC 4424 Vogel Rd., Suite 305 Evansville, IN 47715 Telephone: (812) 402-7700 Facsimile: (812) 402-7744 E-mail: lane@sieskylaw.com karolina@sieskylaw.com - and - Todd C. Barsumian, Esq. BARSUMIAN LAW 5455 Old Indiana 261 Newburgh, IN 47630 Telephone: (812) 490-0820 Facsimile: (812) 490-0821 E-mail: todd@barsumianlaw.com - and - Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq. BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC 411 Main Street Evansville, IN 47708 Telephone: (812) 424-1001 Facsimile: (812) 424-1005 E-mail: kfb@bdlegal.com WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Pomegranate Juice Mislabeling -------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy and Ryan Davis, writing for Law360, report that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is purposefully misleading consumers by labeling as cranberry-pomegranate juice a beverage that's primarily a mixture of water and other juice concentrates, according to a proposed class action filed in Florida federal court. Lead plaintiff Cheryl Hulse filed the complaint on Feb. 27, saying Wal-Mart is violating Florida law by intentionally marketing its "Great Value 100% Juice Cranberry Pomegranate" beverage as something its not in an effort to tap into the "enormous new market" of health-conscious people looking to buy cranberry and pomegranate products. "With the nutritional and health benefits of pomegranate and cranberry juices becoming widely known, consumer demand for pomegranate and cranberry juices has increased rapidly," the complaint says. Cranberries and pomegranates are prominently displayed and named on the juice label, while the other ingredients, including white grape, apple and plum juice concentrates, are described in a smaller font, according to the suit. As a result of this "misleading and unfair marketing tactic," Ms. Hulse bought the juice believing it contained the health and nutritional benefits commonly associated with pomegranate and cranberry juices, the complaint says, adding that studies have shown the fruits contribute to a healthy heart. "This labeling tactic misleads the average reasonable consumer to believe that they are purchasing a product that primarily contains pomegranate and cranberry, when in reality, they are being deceived into paying a price premium for water and cheap juices," the complaint says. Because of the juice's makeup, Wal-Mart should have advertised it as white grape juice or apple juice or placed images of these fruits alongside the cranberries and pomegranates on the front label, the lawsuit says. It also argues that the information on the back label can't be used to defend deceptive front-label claims. The complaint cited a September 2010 decision in California federal court in which a jury found that while the name of Welch Foods Inc.'s "Welch's 100% Juice White Grape Pomegranate" drink was literally accurate, it was still deceptive, and Welch had intended to deceive consumers. The plaintiff in that case, Pom Wonderful LLC, said the juice was mostly grape and apple juice, with about 1 ounce of pomegranate juice in a 64-ounce bottle. If the immediate case is certified as a class action, it would include any Florida residents who bought the juice for personal use in the past four years. The plaintiffs are looking to recover all revenue Wal-Mart received from the sale of the juice during that time, and for the retailer to stop its alleged mislabeling of the product. Joshua H. Eggnatz -- JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com -- of Eggnatz Lopatin & Pascucci LLP, one of Hulse's lawyers, said he couldn't comment on the pending litigation. Ms. Hulse is represented by Joshua H. Eggnatz and Michael J. Pascucci of Eggnatz Lopatin & Pascucci LLP. The case is Hulse v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number 3:15-cv- 00233, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. * Class Actions Over Herbal Supplements Fraud Pile Up ----------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the plaintiffs bar has filed more than 50 class actions in the past month that accuse retailers like Target Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of widespread fraud through the sale of herbal supplements. The lawsuits cite New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's findings last month that just 21 percent of herbal supplements subjected to a series of tests in his office had DNA of the plants listed on the labels. In most cases, the results found various unlisted fillers, including houseplants and rice. Mr. Schneiderman has subpoenaed Target Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., GNC Holdings Inc. and Walgreen Co., insisting that they explain the ingredients in their products. Plaintiffs lawyers expect that more companies will be named in their lawsuits, in addition to the defendants already identified. "You have companies that say they're selling a particular product that contains certain ingredients and, in fact, many of their products don't contain the ingredients they say is in the product," said Jason Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- head of the New York office of Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, which filed a class action against all four retailers last month. "Unlike a lot of claims with different food products that seem to be focused primarily on issues regarding efficacy or the amount of fat, or all natural, this is just an outright brazen fraud by these companies." Industry groups have challenged the science behind the findings, arguing that the tests are unreliable because DNA gets destroyed in the manufacturing of herbal supplements. "The litigation is likely to focus in substantial part on the testing criteria," said Daniel Girard, managing partner of San Francisco's Girard Gibbs, who filed a class action against Target. GNC, represented by John Hooper -- jhooper@reedsmith.com -- a partner in the New York office of Reed Smith, is seeking to debunk the attorney general's science and, on March 10, announced that a new round of its own tests found its Herbal Plus products to be "safe, pure, properly labeled and in full compliance with all regulatory requirements." Wal-Mart, which faces the most lawsuits, has retained Kevin Rising, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg. Spokesman Randy Hargrove said the products at issue were found to be safe in tests the manufacturers conducted. Walgreen has retained Amanda Groves, a partner in the Charlotte office of Chicago-based Winston & Strawn. Spokeswoman Emily Hartwig said Walgreen is reviewing the matter and will cooperate with the attorneys general. A spokesman for Target, which has retained Jonathan Paikin, a Washington partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, declined to comment. The global market for herbal supplements and remedies, which don't require FDA approval as do food and drugs, is projected to reach $115 billion by 2020, according to a report released last month by Global Industry Analysts Inc. Many of the fastest-growing supplements, such as ginseng and St. John's wort, were among the six tested by Mr. Schneiderman's office. The tests found that 35 percent of the products actually contained fillers and allergens, such as wheat. In addition to the four retailers, Mr. Schneiderman sent letters to four brand-name manufacturers. He's also expanded his investigation to include attorneys general from Connecticut, Indiana and Puerto Rico. In court, plaintiffs attorneys have accused the companies of violating various state consumer fraud statutes by misrepresenting the ingredients in their products. Mr. Zweig said his case isn't limited to the herbal supplements that Mr. Schneiderman tested. "We have information that suggests that what the attorney general has uncovered is not specific to these herbal supplements that he disclosed in his letters," he said. Plaintiffs lawyers have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to coordinate the cases before a single judge, advocating for several courts in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Kentucky. The panel is expected to take up the matter at its May 28 hearing in Minneapolis. The retailers have pulled some products from shelves but so far haven't responded in court. * FCRA Class Actions Against Employers Prevalent ------------------------------------------------ According to Attorney Lester Rosen, Founder & CEO of Employment Screening Resources, two class action lawsuits filed in federal courts in Wisconsin by the same lawyers and the same lead plaintiff within one week of each other and both alleging the same cause of action underscore the prevalence of class action lawsuits for violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). It also demonstrates that employers can easily avoid these lawsuits by paying attention to the basics of the FCRA since both lawsuits were based on the use of language that Employment Screening Resources (ESR) has long warned employers to avoid. On January 30, 2015, attorneys for Cory Groshek filed an FCRA class action lawsuit against a hospitality management company alleging that the Candidate Release Authorization form contained language that purported to release from liability both the employer and anyone providing information. The complaint further alleged that other extraneous information was on the form. The case was filed in United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. On February 6, 2015, the same attorneys filed another lawsuit against a national cable company also on behalf of Mr. Groshek. In a similar allegation, the complaint noted that the online onboarding form for the background check contained the language: "I hereby release from liability all persons and organizations furnishing references or other information." That case was filed in the United District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Both complaints noted that the language is "contrary to the unambiguous language of the (FCRA) statute and are in direct contradiction to judicial and regulatory guidance that has been in place for more than 16 years." The complaints discuss that such release language has the effect of adding excess language to the disclosure that is not permitted and that such release of liability clauses are not permitted. The complaints both cite the Hauxwell advisory letter issued by the Federal Trade Commission in 1998 that advised employers and screening firms that the required disclosure forms for a background check should not contain any extraneous information and that any waivers of rights potentially violates the FCRA. The FCRA in section 604(b((2)(A) also requires that a disclosure for a background check (called a Consumer Report) must be contained "in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes." In both complaints, an allegation of willfulness is made, meaning that the plaintiff's attorneys are not just seeking $100 to $1,000 for every applicant who signed the allegedly defective forms, but also cost and attorneys fees. The willfulness allegations also allow the class action attorneys to seek punitive damages. Under the FCRA, punitive damages can be sought where an employer engaged in conduct that was "objectively" unreasonable, even if the employer did not intend any harm. It should be noted that these cases are entirely avoidable by following the most basic requirements of the FCRA. In the First Edition of "The Safe Hiring Manual" issued in 2004 by Employment Screening Resources (ESR), it is clearly stated that such language should not be included in a discourse. ESR had also published educational materials prior to that cautioning employers not to include such release language in the disclosure forms. Although background checks are mission critical for any employer, it is equally critical to ensure that the process is done correctly. * Securities Class Actions Against Life-Science Companies Double ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that securities class actions against life-sciences companies more than doubled last year, to 39 cases compared with 19 during 2013, according to a survey by Dechert. The firm attributed the trend to a large number of pharmaceutical companies with products in the early stages of development Any negative news about these products could prompt securities fraud lawsuits, said David Kotler, a white-collar and securities litigation partner who practices in New York and Princeton, N.J. Mr. Kotler wrote the Dechert Survey of Securities Fraud Class Actions Brought Against U.S. Life Sciences Companies, issued on March 16. "It's really just a reflection on the increased stakes in the game for early-stage life-sciences companies," he said. The lack of recent economic catastrophes and stock-price plunges that might trigger securities lawsuits is another factor, Mr. Kotler said. Securities fraud filings against life-sciences companies represented 23 percent of the cases filed last year, compared with 11 percent in 2013, 18 percent in 2012 and 9 percent in 2011. More than one-fifth of life-sciences securities cases filed since 2011 -- 22 percent -- have already been tossed out of court, Mr. Kotler found. That's 23 out of 106 total cases. He said the average dismissal rate of securities class action cases is usually about 10 to 15 percent. "Just because there was an adverse development in the commercialization of a product doesn't mean it was fraud," he said. "[That argument] hasn't made logical sense in the eyes of the court." Nine cases have settled and 20 have pending dismissal or summary- judgment motions. Just over half, or 54 cases, are in the discovery stage. Mr. Kotler acknowledged that two recent plaintiff-friendly securities rulings by U.S. Supreme Court haven't yet affected life-sciences fraud litigation. In 2013, the court ruled, 6-3, in Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds that plaintiffs do not have to prove at the class-certification stage that a company misrepresentation was material to the stock-price change. And last year, in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, known as Halliburton II, the court upheld the fraud-on-the-market presumption. That theory posits that share prices reflect publicly available information or misinformation, and allows plaintiffs to bring cases without specific proof that company statements misled particular investors. "As the active cases work their way through courts and class certification, I would expect to see some impact by this time next year," Mr. Kotler said. * Oregon Votes for Bill to Change Handling of Class Action Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan J. Cooper, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Oregon legislative Democrats voted on March 3 to change the way the state handles class-action lawsuits, rejecting objections from Republicans who insisted the bill would damage the state's business climate. Democrats say their bill would prevent companies that break the law from keeping the tainted money. Republicans say it would become far too easy to bring large lawsuits in Oregon. They also say it would unfairly change the rules for a lawsuit already in progress against the oil company BP, potentially costing the company tens of millions of dollars. The state Senate approved the measure in a 17-13 vote, with one Democrat, Sen. Betsy Johnson of Scappoose, joining all Republicans in opposition. The bill goes next to Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, who is "supportive," said a spokeswoman, Melissa Navas. Class-action lawsuits involve multiple plaintiffs who allege they were harmed in the same way by a defendant, usually a corporation. If the company settles the lawsuit or loses at trial, it is required to make a payout to all the people who have been harmed. On large cases, there are often thousands of people entitled to a payout who never claim one because they can't be located or because the amount of money they'd receive doesn't justify the effort. Democrats say they want to make sure businesses don't get to keep the money they'd owe those people who don't claim their portion of the judgment. "You would think that this is a bill that's about lawyers, or legal procedures, and to me, nothing could be further from the truth," said Sen. Diane Rosenbaum, D-Portland. "This is a bill that will affect the lives of real people. People who have been wronged." Under the Democratic bill, the defendant would have to pay the unclaimed money toward another cause. At least half would have to go toward legal services for the poor, and the rest, at the judge's discretion, could go to a charity. Republicans and business interests contend the bill would require businesses to make payouts to charities on behalf of people who weren't actually harmed. And they say it would unfairly change the rules in the middle of the game for lawsuits already in progress. "This bill also would have an impact on a case already adjudicated and sitting on the judge's desk," said Sen. Jeff Kruse, R- Roseburg. "This is not the way we do things in Oregon." The bill is likely to cost BP West Coast Products, an oil company, tens of millions of dollars in a class-action lawsuit it lost at trial in Multnomah County Circuit Court. A jury said BP broke the law when it charged customers a fee to use an ATM card at its Arco and AM-PM gas stations. The company was ordered to pay $200 to each of the more than 2 million people estimated to be affected. It's appealing the verdict. ********* 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 * * *