/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150414.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 74 Headlines 119 FASHION: Faces "Garcia-Deyargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ABCO CONTRACTING: Faces "Naylor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ADDISON SUBWAY: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Dist. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ALL TATTOOS: Faces "Bissell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALPHA NATURAL: Received $70K of Insurance Proceeds in Settlement ALPHA NATURAL: Plaintiffs in Wrongful Death Suits Filed New Case ALPHA NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Massey Class Action Remains Pending ALPHA NATURAL: 2016 Trial Scheduled in NCI Class Action ALPHA NATURAL: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Emerald Case Dismissal ALPHA NATURAL: Time to Answer Pa. Complaint Extended Until May 7 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Jaynes" Suit Over Anti-Steering Rules AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Vickery and Lynn Case Dismissed ANTHEM INC: Faces "Xides" Suit in Ohio Over Alleged Data Breach ASIFALI KAROWALIA: "Rios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime AT&T INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over CDMA Handsets Sale AVAIL LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Claims BACKYARD CREATION: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in D. Md. Over Loss Mitigation Policies BED BATH: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BLACKROCK INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Advisory Fees BOULDER BRANDS: Sued in Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports BOULDER MUFFLER: "Harrison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Falsely Marketed Floor Seats, Action Claims CACH LLC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Ross" Case CEPHALON: Judge Denies Class Status in Actiq Marketing Suit CHEMICAL & MINING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports CHIKURIN 236: Faces "Shiu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHRYLER GROUP: Jury Awards $150MM to Jeep Fire Victim's Family COMCAST CORP: 2nd Circuit Reverses Class Action Certification COOPER VISION: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing COOPER VISION: Faces "Mah" Sui Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing COOPER VISION: Faces "Hatridge" Suit Over Lens Resale Price CORNING INC: Court Narrows Claims in Modern Holdings Suit CORNING INC: Koninklijke Philips Dropped From Class Suit DECOSTER EGG: Salmonella Outbreak Caused Widespread Harm DESERT CHAMPIONS: Illegally Prints Credit Card Numbers, Suit Says DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: May Face Wrongful Death Claims in U.S. DIRECT HEATING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gettelman" Suit Says DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims DXP ENTERPRISES: Faces "Veloz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime EL GALLEGO: Faces "Colindres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ENCINO MOTORCARS: "Service Advisers" Entitled to Overtime Pay EXXON MOBIL: Details of $225MM Settlement With NJ State FIVE STAR: Faces "Hartwell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FLORIDA HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Etienne" Suit Claims GOGREENRIDE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Claims HARBINGER CAPITAL: Dist. Court Narrows Claims in Investors Suit HERBALIFE LTD: May 11 Final Approval Hearing in Bostick Accord HERBALIFE LTD: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Case HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action HTH CORPORATION: Obligated to Pay Plaintiff's Counsel Fees INDYMAC: Judge Awards $28.5 Mil. in Fees to Plaintiffs Lawyers INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims J&F ANALYSTS: Faces "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT JETRO HOLDINGS: Faces "Macias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JF MOORE: Faces "Gingrass" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JMG RESTAURANT: "Barrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime JNH FOOD: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KARIKAN DONUT: "Chavez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ky. Court Narrows Claims in "Cox" Suit LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wong" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware LIBERTY MUTUAL: Property Owners Entitled to Flood Insurance LONG SPRING: Faces "Candia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Duckworth" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roach" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Fitzgerald" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LYFT INC: Adds Keker & Van Nest to Defense Team MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Sued Over Blind Inaccessible Machines MICHIGAN: DOC Sued Over Failure to Provide Assistance for Deaf MOLYCORP INC: Colorado Securities Action Dismissed NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Durocher" Okayed NNS TRADING: "Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages NORTHERN TRUST: Sued Over Misleading Plan Amendment Notice PACCAR INC: Sued in D.N.J. Over Defective Vehicles Engine & ATS PATRIOT PAYMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims POTOMAC FAMILY: "Grubb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Forseter" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cossey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PTC SEAMLESS: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice RCI HOSPITALITY: "Clark" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages REGENCY ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Merger Plans RESONANT INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports RESPONSIVE DATA: Has Sent Spam Ads, "Stewart" Suit Claims RIDDELL INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Durocher" Class Action RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $13MM Verdict to Smoker's Widow SAFE ENVIRONMENT: Faces "Boodhoo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SNYDER'S-LANCE: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Action Claims STAIN-AWAY LLC: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Claims STEVEN SANN: Pleads Guilty in Phone "Cramming" Scheme Case SUPERIOR ENERGY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TEKSOLV INC: Faces "Thurston" Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime TROY MOTORS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers OT, "Harnden" Suit Says TRUST SECURITY: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNI-PIXEL INC: Filed Answer to SDNY Class Action UNI-PIXEL INC: Entered Into MOU to Settle Texas Securities Action UNITED PARCEL: Pregnancy Ruling to Have Implications for Employers VIA QUADRONNO: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages WBS INC: "Norwood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages WHITTAKER CLARK: $1.6MM Cosmetic Talc Asbestos Verdict Upheld YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Martindale" Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports ZIJA INTERNATIONAL: Illegally Records Calls, "Irby" Suit Says * DoL to Issue New Rules on "White-Collar" OT Pay Exemptions * Malpractice Plaintiffs Can Get New Experts, Supreme Court Rules * Third-Party Litigation Funding Fuels Canadian Class Suit Abuse ********* 119 FASHION: Faces "Garcia-Deyargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adolfo Garcia-Deyargas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Joseph Maino, individually and d/b/a Handbags 100 King Street, 119 Fashion Wholesalers Ltd., Deborah Maino and Marisa Maino, Case No. 1:15-cv-02285 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 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 retail stores in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. P. Howley,Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN HOWLEY 350 5th Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 601-2728 Facsimile: (347) 603-1328 E-mail: jhowley@johnhowleyesq.com ABCO CONTRACTING: Faces "Naylor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Micheal Naylor, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. Abco Contracting, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and Albert Hood, Case No. 1:15-cv-00623 (D. Colo., March 26, 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 construction company with its principal place of business located at 180 East 74th Place, Denver, Colorado 80229. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian David Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES, THE LAW OFFICES OF 123 North College Avenue, #200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 212-4665 Facsimile: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com ADDISON SUBWAY: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Urrutia-Rivero, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Addison Subway, Inc. and Mohammad Iqbal, Case No. 1:15-cv-02589 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 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 sandwich restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com vnarvaez@yourclg.com ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Dist. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' securities fraud action in the case docketed as BABAK HATAMIAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-00226-YGR. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim in the securities fraud action that they have brought against the Defendants. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in her Order Denying Motion to Dismiss executed on March 31, 2015, denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A copy of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss is available at http://is.gd/Lbwt57from Leagle.com. Judge Rogers concluded that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Consequently, she denied the motion to dismiss. Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Attorney for Plaintiffs Babak Hatamian and Lussu Dennj Salvatore. Patrick Edward Gibbs -- patrick.gibbs@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Ming M Zhu -- ming.zhu@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Rory P. Read, Thomas J. Seifert, Lisa T. Su, and Richard A. Bergman. Sharon Maine Lee -- slee@lchb.com --, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, William S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, James Michael Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Jonathan Gardner -- jonathan@cohengardnerlaw.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Attorneys for Movant KBC Asset Management NV. Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Attorney for Movant Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System. Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Paul J Scarlato, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Sharon Maine Lee, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein & Nicole Catherine Lavallee, Berman DeValerio, Attorneys for Movant Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. ALL TATTOOS: Faces "Bissell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Bissell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. All Tattoos, LLC d/b/a All Tattoos, MTB Properties, LLC d/b/a Body Revolution, Trathom, LLC d/b/a Body Revolution and Endeavor LLC d/b/a Body Revolution, Case No. 1:15-cv-00603 (N.D. Ohio, March 26, 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 tattoo and body piercing studios in Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Steiner, Esq. LAZZARO LAW FIRM 920 Rockefeller Bldg. 614 Superior Avenue, W Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: david@lazzarolawfirm.com ALPHA NATURAL: Received $70K of Insurance Proceeds in Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company received approximately $70,000 of insurance proceeds in connection with the settlement in the securities class action suits. In 2010, two purported class actions that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought against, among others, Massey Energy Company ("Massey"), now the Company's subsidiary Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha Appalachia"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "Court") in connection with alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The lead plaintiffs alleged that (i) Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and that (ii) Massey's former officers violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. In 2014, the parties reached agreement on definitive settlement terms, subject to court approval. In February 2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, following which the Company made an initial payment of $30,000 into an escrow account. In June 2014, the Company deposited the remaining $235,000 of the settlement amount into the escrow account. On June 4, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the settlement and dismissed the class action with prejudice. The Company received approximately $70,000 of insurance proceeds in connection with the settlement. ALPHA NATURAL: Plaintiffs in Wrongful Death Suits Filed New Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in wrongful death and personal injury suits filed a new complaint on November 7, 2014. Twenty of the twenty-nine families of the deceased miners filed wrongful death suits against Massey Energy Company ("Massey") and certain of its subsidiaries in West Virginia, in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court. In addition, two seriously injured employees filed personal injury claims against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court seeking damages for physical injuries and/or alleged psychiatric injuries, and thirty-nine employees filed lawsuits against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court alleging emotional distress or personal injuries due to their proximity to the explosion. Through mediation ordered by the Boone County Circuit Court, the Company reached agreements to settle with all twenty-nine families of the deceased miners, the two employees who were seriously injured and thirty-nine employees who filed lawsuits for emotional distress or personal injuries. The settlements reached with the families of the deceased miners were approved by the court, and the other settlements did not require court approval. On April 5, 2012, the family of one of the deceased miners filed a class action suit in Boone County Circuit Court, purportedly on behalf of the families that settled their claims prior to the mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract, naming as defendants Massey, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of Directors. On June 17, 2013 and August 29, 2013, two complaints were filed in Boone County Circuit Court alleging personal injury claims relating to the Upper Big Branch ("UBB") mine explosion. In July 2014, the Circuit Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in one of the two cases. The second motion was denied in October 2014. On July 17, 2013, the administrators for the estates of three miners who died in the UBB explosion filed an action against Alpha and Alpha Appalachia in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia claiming they are entitled "criminal restitution" under the Agreement, which defendants moved to dismiss. In October 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal order. In September 2014, the Court of Appeals determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the District Court had jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. On October 22, 2014, the District Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice and terminating all pending motions as moot. Plaintiffs filed a new complaint on November 7, 2014. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a surreply memorandum. These motions remain pending before the District Court. ALPHA NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Massey Class Action Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case, Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation remains pending. In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation ("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders (the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at the Upper Big Branch ("UBB") mine, and by wasting corporate assets by paying allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop" provision and a termination fee. In addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which, at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey in February 2011. The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2011. In June 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In June 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining direct claims. In September 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 2012, without prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a termination of the stay by application to the court. The court approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The court extended the stay several times and the most recent stay expired on October 31, 2014. On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which maintains claims against Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers but no longer asserts claims against the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 5, 2014, and the motion remains pending. ALPHA NATURAL: 2016 Trial Scheduled in NCI Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Circuit Court has scheduled the trial for April 25-29 and May 2-6, 2016 in the NCI Litigation. On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a putative class action lawsuit against Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. ("NCI") filed in the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the "NCI Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff in the NCI Employee Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represented the plaintiff in the Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation ("ACTF") Litigation, and the complaint's allegations raise issues similar to those in the ACTF Litigation and arise from the same Red Jacket Contract that was at issue in the ACTF Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation. NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, but on June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to review the submitted questions in the absence of a more developed factual record in the lower court. Proceedings in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia therefore resumed. The Circuit Court has scheduled the trial for April 25-29 and May 2-6, 2016. On October 14, 2014, NCI filed and served a third party complaint against WVDOH seeking a declaration of rights and obligations of the parties. Specifically, the complaint seeks a determination as to whether NCI is entitled to indemnification for any liability it may incur in the NCI Employee Litigation. The complaint also seeks a declaration that the Red Jacket Contract obligates WVDOH to enter into a supplemental agreement with NCI to reimburse NCI for any additional costs incurred, or to be incurred, as a result of the changes to the Red Jacket Contract arising from the February 26, 2013 order entered against WVDOH in the ACTF Litigation, including without limitation any costs and expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by NCI related to the wage and benefit rates for work on the project, including to the extent any such additional costs, damages, statutory penalties, and/or attorney fees are awarded against NCI in the NCI Employee Litigation. WVDOH moved to dismiss the third party complaint on grounds of sovereign immunity and exclusive jurisdiction of the West Virginia Court of Claims. On February 20, 2015, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County held a hearing on pending matters, including the WVDOH motion to dismiss the third party complaint filed against it by NCI. The Circuit Court ruled from the bench that it would grant WVDOH's motion to dismiss NCI's third party complaint and thereby dismiss WVDOH from this action. A formal written dismissal order is expected to be entered soon. The Company is reviewing this development and evaluating its options. ALPHA NATURAL: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Emerald Case Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of the Emerald purported securities class action. On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on March 22, 2013 and March 29, 2013. On January 8, 2015, the Boone County Circuit Court dismissed with prejudice all claims in the plaintiff's amended complaint. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal. ALPHA NATURAL: Time to Answer Pa. Complaint Extended Until May 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants' time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Pennsylvania complaint was extended until May 7, 2015. On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia Circuit Court action filed a second complaint in Greene County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. By agreement of the parties, the defendants' time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Pennsylvania complaint was extended until May 7, 2015. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces "Jaynes" Suit Over Anti-Steering Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- Hillary Jaynes, Anthony Oliver, Bernadette Martin, Bryan Huey on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01598 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), arises out of the Anti-Steering Rules or Non- Discrimination Provisions that the Defendants entered into an illegal vertical agreements with merchants who accept American Express credit cards which artificially inflate the retail prices for goods and services. The Defendants own and operate a financial services company with its principal place of business in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd A. Seaver, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com tseaver@bermandevalerio.com - and - Gordon Ball, Esq. Lance K. Baker, Esq. GORDON BALL PLLC 7001 Old Kent Drive Knoxville, TN 37919 Telephone: (865) 525-7028 Facsimile: (865) 525-4679 E-mail: gball@gordonball.com - and - Marvin A. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 Facsimile: (312) 676-2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com - and - Christopher Lovell, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 61 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 Facsimile: (212) 719-4775 E-mail: CLovell@lshllp.com AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION: Vickery and Lynn Case Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- American Public Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to the class action by Tabatha Vickery and Bryan Lynn filed a voluntary stipulation with the court dismissing the case with prejudice. On or about November 18, 2013, a putative class action styled Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn, on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class v. Hondros College, Inc. and John G. Hondros, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, as Case No. CV 13 817299. "National Education Seminars, Inc., which we refer to as Hondros College of Nursing, or HCON, was not named in the lawsuit, but a then member of HCON's Board of Directors, John Hondros, was named in the lawsuit, and the allegations made in the Complaint related to HCON's operations and not the operations of the entity named in the lawsuit," the Company said. The lawsuit asserted claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, for, among other things, the alleged provision of false or misleading information to the named plaintiffs and other putative class members in 2011 and 2012 regarding the status of accreditation by the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission of HCON's Associate Degree in Nursing, or ADN, program offered at its Independence, Ohio campus. The plaintiffs alleged that the putative class consisted of more than 60 former students who in the summer or fall quarters of 2011 enrolled in the ADN or the licensed practical nursing, or LPN, program at the Independence campus with the intention of pursuing a degree in nursing, but who withdrew from the ADN or LPN program. On February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which removed Hondros College, Inc. as a defendant and added HCON as a defendant. In order to avoid further litigation related expenses, HCON and the named plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement on November 19, 2014 under which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their First Amended Complaint in exchange for a de minimis settlement payment. HCON admitted to no wrongdoing in the settlement agreement. On December 17, 2014, the parties filed a voluntary stipulation with the court dismissing the case with prejudice. ANTHEM INC: Faces "Xides" Suit in Ohio Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Marnetta Xides, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. et al, Case No. 4:15-cv-00638 (N.D. Ohio, April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Pasternak, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL B. PASTERNAK Park Place II Ste. 411, 3681 South Green Road Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 360-8500 Facsimile: (216) 360-8501 E-mail: mpasternak1@msn.com ASIFALI KAROWALIA: "Rios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Enrique Munoz Rios, and Adan Mauricio Zuniga, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated v. Asifali Karowalia, Nazma, LLC, Afia & Raaia Business LLC, Nabi & Raaia, LLC, AK & ZM Investments, Inc., & Afia & Wahhab, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00252 (W.D. Tex., April 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a food service and grocery store in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Michael Johnson, Esq. Philip Jonathan Moss, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 474-0007 Facsimile: (512) 474-0008 E-mail: aaron@equaljusticecenter.org philip@equaljusticecenter.org AT&T INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over CDMA Handsets Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Bond, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT & T Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00923 (D. Md., March 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose material information that Cricket would not continue to support the CDMA handsets as a result of the AT&T acquisition and that the CDMA handsets were not compatible with AT&T's GSM cellular network. AT & T Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides wireless products and services and maintains its corporate headquarters in Dallas, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 301 Main Street, Ste. 2-D Reisterstown, MD 21136 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com - and - Oren S. Giskan, Esq. Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART, LLP 11 Broadway, Suite #2150 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 AVAIL LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avail, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00494 (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting consumers on their cellular telephone using automatic telephone dialing system. Avail, LLC is a provider of local SEO services to promote businesses online. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr. #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866)633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com BACKYARD CREATION: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathon K. Parker, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. A Backyard Creation, LLC, Peter Needham, and William Johnston, Case No. 4:15-cv-01389 (D.S.C., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per week. A Backyard Creation, LLC is a Swimming Pool Contractor doing business in Horry County, South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: William James Luse, Esq. WILLIAM J. LUSE LAW OFFICE 1601 Oak Street, Suite 201 Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Telephone: (843) 455-6049 E-mail: lusewilliam@yahoo.com BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in D. Md. Over Loss Mitigation Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Trionfo and Suzanne Trionfo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank Of America, N.A., Case No. 1:15- cv-00925 (D. Md., March 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, specifically by, failing to provide the notices required by RESPA, failing to process loss mitigation applications within the time frames set forth in the new rules, failing to provide borrowers with certain information about how their application was processed, and wrongfully commencing foreclosure proceedings while borrowers' loss mitigation applications are pending. Bank of America, N.A. is a Delaware corporation with its principal office located at 100 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. It is one of the country's leading mortgage servicers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com lcellini@tzlegal.com - and - Geoffrey G. Bestor THE BESTOR LAW FIRM 2701 Calvert Street, N.W, #1109 Washington, D.C. 20008 Telephone: (240) 463-8503 E-mail: gbesq@bestorlaw.com BED BATH: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lissette Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02298 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. owns and operates retail stores throughout the United States that sells goods primarily for the bedroom and bathroom. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Lee Greben, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN 1650 Broadway, Suite 707 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (917) 612-0486 Facsimile: (516) 829-0008 E-mail: grebenlaw@gmail.com BLACKROCK INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Advisory Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a federal judge in Trenton has denied the motion of three subsidiaries of BlackRock Inc. to dismiss a suit claiming that the company charges excessive investment advisory fees on two of its mutual funds. Evidence presented by the shareholders who filed the suit, while "not overwhelming," is sufficient to present a plausible claim that the fees charged by the BlackRock Global Allocation Fund and the BlackRock Equity Dividend Fund are disproportionately large, U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey said March 27 when she denied the motion by BlackRock Advisors, BlackRock Investment Management and BlackRock International Limited to dismiss the case. Judge Wolfson denied the motion to dismiss based on the plaintiffs' allegations that advisory fees charged to the funds for investment advisory services are as much as 106 percent higher than the fees it charges for comparable services provided to certain sub-advised funds; that BlackRock realized economies of scale as the amount of their assets under management increased but did not pass on the savings to the funds; and that boards overseeing the two funds failed to act independently or conscientiously when they approved Investment Management Agreements with defendant BlackRock Advisors. By pleading that a substantial fee disparity exists between the two funds that are the focus of the suit and other funds for which the company provides the same services and uses comparable resources, the plaintiffs have raised a "plausible inference" that the defendants' fees are excessive, Judge Wolfson said. Also weighing in plaintiffs' favor are their allegations to support the inference that the fees are disproportionate and not the product of arm's length negotiations, Judge Wolfson said. Regarding the boards' actions, the judge said there are "sufficient allegations that allow for an inference of rubber- stamping by the boards." The ruling does not indicate that the defendants' arguments lack merit, or that the court finds it likely that the plaintiffs will meet the "onerous standard for liability under Section 36(b)" of the Investment Company Act of 1940, but merely that plaintiffs put forth allegations that raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of elements necessary to prove the claims, Judge Wolfson said. Judge Wolfson said BlackRock criticized the fee comparison as "apples to oranges," but she said this argument "misses the mark." The fee comparison is appropriate, she said, because the claim is based on plaintiffs' assertion that BlackRock Investment Management, in its capacity as sub-adviser, provides the same or substantially the same investment advisory services as all defendants provide the funds. "For purposes of this claim, the ultimate weight of this comparison is not before the court; here, where the court must take the factual allegations of the consolidated complaint as true, the fee comparison contributes to plaintiffs' basis for their claim," Judge Wolfson said. The plaintiffs are Owen Clancy and Jack Hornstein, both shareholders of the Global Allocation Fund; Brendan Foot, a trustee of a trust that holds that fund; and Amy Fox, a shareholder of the Equity Dividend Fund. The suit seeks a declaration that BlackRock charged excessive fees to the funds, in violation of the Investment Company Act's Section 36(b), enjoining it from further violations of the act, and ordering it to repay all unlawful and excessive investment advisory fees for a period of one year before the filing of the suit. BlackRock Investment Management and BlackRock Advisors are headquartered in Princeton, while BlackRock International Limited has its principal office in Edinburgh, Scotland. Andrew Muscato -- andrew.muscato@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York, representing BlackRock, said he would consult with his client about whether it wanted to comment on the ruling, but did not immediately receive a response. Keith Miller of Robinson Miller in Newark, local counsel for BlackRock, declined to comment on the ruling. Andrew Robertson -- arobertson@zsz.com -- of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling in New York, representing the plaintiffs, also declined to comment. BOULDER BRANDS: Sued in Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Lorusso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boulder Brands, Inc., Stephen B. Hughes, James B. Leighton, and Christine Sacco, Case No. 1:15-cv-00679 (D. Colo., April 1, 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. Boulder Brands, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that markets and manufactures a wide array of consumer food products for sale primarily in the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. Rusty E. Glenn THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 484-4886 E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Jack Reise, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 BOULDER MUFFLER: "Harrison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kayla Harrison, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. Boulder Muffler, Inc., d/b/a Midas Auto Systems, Case No. 1:15-cv-00672 (D. Colo., March 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Boulder Muffler, Inc. owns and operates three Midas automobile service franchise with its principal place of business located at 6685 Gunpark Drive, Suite 210, Boulder, Colorado 80301. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian David Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES 123 North College Avenue, #200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 212-4665 Facsimile: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com BUMBO INTERNATIONAL: Falsely Marketed Floor Seats, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated v. Bumbo International Trust f/k/a Jonibach Management Trust and Jonibach (Pty) Ltd. f/k/a Bumbo (Pty) Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-02725 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' deceptive practices in its marketing and advertising of the Bumbo floor seat. They claim that the product helps babies to seat upright and to allow for active practice of the head and postural trunk control. However, the Bumbo floor seat actually prevents babies from engaging in natural movements for their development, for example active trunk and postural control. Bumbo International Trust The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Agruss, Esq. AGRUSS LAW FIRM, LLC 4619 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 303A Chicago, IL 60640 Telephone: (312) 224-4695 Facsimile: (3120 253-4451 E-mail: michael@agrusslawfirm.com - and - Robert R. Duncan, Esq. DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC 161 N. Clark, Suite 2550 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 202-3283 Facsimile: (312) 202-3284 E-mail: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com CACH LLC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Ross" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey rejected on April 1, 2015, a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned SINCERRAE ROSS, Plaintiff, v. CACH, LLC; CACH OF NEW JERSEY, LLC; and ANGELICA MARTINEZ, Defendant, CIV. NO. 2:14- 6321 (WJM). District Judge William J. Martini, in his Opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NE72lufrom Leagle.com, denied CACH's Motion to Compel Arbitration and directed the parties to engage in discovery to determine the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Sincerrae Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Wolf -- awolf@ wolflawfirm.net -- The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, Christopher J. McGinn -- cjmcginn@njconsumerprotection.com -- Law Office of Christopher J. Mcginn CACH, LLC, Defendant, represented by Randi A. Wolf -- rwolf@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C. CACH of New Jersey, LLC, Defendant, represented by Randi A. Wolf -- rwolf@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C. Angelica Martinez, Defendant, represented by Randi A. Wolf -- rwolf@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C. CEPHALON: Judge Denies Class Status in Actiq Marketing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, The Legal Intelligencer, reports that Cephalon won't have to face a nationwide class-action suit over its heavy-duty painkiller for cancer patients, Actiq, since a federal judge in Philadelphia denied class status in the case. The chief judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Petrese B. Tucker, departed from some other trial court judges in the Third Circuit to find that the laws of all 50 states would be implicated in the case since there are material differences between those laws. Courts have split on that threshold question, weighing whether there are conflicts among various states' unjust enrichment laws, according to Judge Tucker's opinion. The sole claim on which the plaintiffs had sought class status was for Cephalon's alleged unjust enrichment through its off-label marketing of Actiq. Cephalon pleaded guilty to off-label marketing for several drugs, including Actiq, in 2008 following a federal investigation, according to Tucker's opinion. This suit was filed a year before that, in 2007, seeking nearly $700 million in damages from Cephalon's alleged profits due to the off-label marketing scheme. Following her conclusion that the law of no single state could fairly apply to the nationwide case, Judge Tucker held the issues common to the plaintiffs don't predominate over the issues affecting each of the plaintiffs individually. She also found that handling the case as a class action isn't a superior method to handling the cases separately. "The elements of plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim cannot be succinctly identified because, as discussed, the law of each TPP's home state will govern," Judge Tucker said in her discussion of predominance, referring to the third-party payers, like the union health-care funds that brought the suit. "For example, some states require five elements to prove a claim of unjust enrichment while others require three or four . . . . For the same reasons why an actual conflict exists among the unjust enrichment laws of the 50 states, individual issues of law predominate with regard to a nationwide class." Differences in the law don't necessarily foreclose the possibility of a class action if groups of plaintiffs can be created, Judge Tucker said, citing to Third Circuit law articulated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's 2014 opinion in Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics. The plaintiffs in this case offered groupings, bundling together states with similar laws into four sections. But, the judge said, the "plaintiffs' notable grouping efforts, however, still do not account for individual fact issues such that common issues predominate." She quoted from the Commonwealth Court's 2006 opinion in Limbach v. City of Philadelphia, which said, "'The polestar of the unjust enrichment inquiry is whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched.'" "Resolution to this question is, by nature, fact-sensitive," Judge Tucker said. She noted there do exist several facts common to all plaintiffs, including that Cephalon made money from all of the entities that paid for Actiq, the requirements from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the sale and distribution of Actiq, and the company's "inconsistencies" with those requirements related to the 2008 guilty plea. "Using common proof, plaintiffs can easily establish the facts of Cephalon's marketing and sales activities for Actiq and whether it complied with the Actiq RiskMAP," which is the name of the plan setting out the FDA's additional requirements for the sale and distribution of particularly dangerous medications, Judge Tucker said. "Not as easy is plaintiff's classwide showing of whether Cephalon's enrichment was unjust," the judge said. The Actiq RiskMAP required Cephalon to address physicians if off- label usage for the drug went over 15 percent of its total usage in a quarter, according to Judge Tucker's opinion. But, showing that Cephalon didn't comply with the RiskMAP doesn't necessarily prove that payments for Actiq beyond 15 percent of the total quarterly prescriptions for Actiq were unjust, she said, explaining that if the company had addressed physicians, the amount of off-label prescriptions for Actiq could still have remained over 15 percent. "Further, plaintiffs made their own decisions regarding coverage for Actiq prescriptions, which must be considered in assessing equitable circumstances," Judge Tucker said. The judge later concluded, "Whether TPPs' payments for Actiq prescriptions resulted in unjust enrichment is a question resolved by examination into the actions not only of Cephalon, but also of individual TPPs and prescribing doctors." As for considering the superiority of a class action suit over separate, individual suits, Tucker noted the similar cases brought by other third-party payers that have been lost in other courts. "The court acknowledges that failure to certify a class may result in numerous individual suits like these, but an interest in fairness in adjudicating individual issues outweighs the judicial burden of such suits," Judge Tucker said. "This court therefore concludes that a class action is not a superior method for fair and efficient adjudication of this case." J. Gordon Cooney -- jgcooney@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia represented Cephalon, and Joseph Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check in Radnor represented the plaintiffs. Neither could be reached for comment. CHEMICAL & MINING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------- Chris Kramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chemical & Mining Co. Of Chile Inc. a/k/a Sociedad Quimica Y Minera De Chile S.A., Patricio Contesse, Patricio De Solminihac, and Ricardo Ramos, Case No. 2:15-cv-02250 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 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. Chemical & Mining Co. of Chile Inc. is a Chilean corporation, which purports to be the world's largest producer of potassium nitrate, iodine, and lithium chemicals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CHIKURIN 236: Faces "Shiu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Man Wai Shiu and Dan Feng Lin, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Chikurin 236 LLC, d/b/a Chikurin, Wai Hung Chan a/k/a Alex Chan, Nancy Doe, John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01712 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 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 restaurant located at 1824 Avenue X, Brooklyn, New York 11235. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (918) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com CHRYLER GROUP: Jury Awards $150MM to Jeep Fire Victim's Family -------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Krisher and Dee-Ann Durbin, writing for The Associated Press, report that a jury in Georgia has awarded $150 million to the family of a 4-year-old boy killed when a Jeep Grand Cherokee exploded into flames three years ago after being rear-ended. The jury said Chrysler, the maker of Jeeps, must pay nearly the full amount. Jurors in Decatur County ruled April 2 that Chrysler acted with reckless disregard for human life in selling the family of Remington "Remi" Walden a 1999 Jeep with a gas tank mounted behind the rear axle. Walden, of Bainbridge, Georgia, was killed when the Jeep driven by his aunt was hit from behind by a pickup truck in March 2012. The fuel tank leaked, engulfing the Jeep in flames and killing the boy. The verdict comes nearly two years after Chrysler compromised with a federal safety agency and agreed to a scaled-down recall of some older-model Jeeps with the rear-mounted tanks. The tanks have little structure to protect them if struck from behind, making them susceptible to punctures and fires. Federal documents show that at least 75 people have died in post- crash fires because of the rear-mounted fuel tanks. The 11-woman, one-man jury ruled after a nine day trial that Chrysler was 99 percent at fault for the crash and the pickup driver was 1 percent at fault. Jurors also determined that Chrysler failed to warn the family of the hazards of driving the Jeep. They ruled that the Waldens should get $30 million for Remi's pain and suffering and $120 million for the full value of his life, according to a verdict form. Mike Palese, spokesman for Chrysler parent company FCA US, said the company is disappointed with the verdict and would appeal. Chrysler, he said, was prevented from presenting data submitted to federal safety regulators showing that the vehicles did not pose an unreasonable safety risk. "The vehicles are not defective," Mr. Palese said. Although the verdict is large, it isn't the largest judgment ever against an automaker in a personal injury case. In 1999, for example, a California jury ordered General Motors Co. to pay $4.9 billion to Patricia Anderson and Jo Tigner after their Chevrolet Malibu was rear-ended and burst into flames. In that case, four children in the back seat were severely injured. The amount was reduced on appeal to $1.2 billion. And in 2004, a woman paralyzed when her Ford Explorer rolled over won a $369 million verdict from Ford Motor Co. That was later reduced to $83 million, which Ford eventually paid after exhausting its appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond law school, said it will be difficult for Chrysler to overturn a jury verdict, but an appeals court might reduce the amount. He questioned Chrysler's decision to take the case to trial because of the horrific nature of the crash. Mr. Tobias said the Walden verdict is likely to lead others to sue the company or to speed along cases that are already in the system. Chrysler has long contended that the Jeeps were no more dangerous than comparable SUVs built at the time. It used that argument to convince the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2013 to allow it to recall 1.56 million Jeeps after the government agency initially recommended that 2.7 million be repaired. Under the recall, Chrysler agreed to install trailer hitches in the rear as an extra layer of protection. Safety advocates have called the size of the recall and the fix inadequate. On April 2, Clarence Ditlow, the head of the Center for Auto Safety, called on the government to reopen its investigation against Chrysler. NHTSA spokesman Gordon Trowbridge said on April 2 that the agency monitors legal decisions and "if new information emerges, we take it into account and act appropriately." Atlanta attorney Jim Butler argued during the trial that Remi's death resulted from the fire because of the gas tank's poor position. The child was on his way to a tennis lesson when the SUV was struck from behind. "Numerous witnesses saw Remi struggling to escape and heard him screaming for help," the family's lawsuit alleged. The lawsuit alleged that Chrysler placed the gas tank in a "crush zone" behind the rear axle and knew the location was dangerous, and that the company failed to protect the gas tank against rupturing. Trial testimony showed that the compromise with safety regulators over the recall was worked out in a Chicago airport meeting between Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and ex-NHTSA Administrator David Strickland. Mr. Ditlow noted that Mr. Strickland now works for Venable, a law firm that has represented Chrysler. COMCAST CORP: 2nd Circuit Reverses Class Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael W. Ross, writing for Law.com, reports that in a pair of precedential opinions in March -- Roach v. T.L. Cannon1 and Sykes v. Mel. S. Harris & Assocs. -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit interpreted Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), narrowly and ruled that plaintiffs need not present class- wide proof of damages to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). In Comcast, the Supreme Court had reversed certification of a class action where the named plaintiffs had failed to present proof that their class-wide damages theory could support their liability claim, thereby leaving individual damages determinations to overwhelm issues common to the class. 133 S. Ct. at 1433. The Second Circuit held in Roach and Sykes that Comcast did not preclude individual damages determinations in class actions. In declining to adopt a broader view of the rule in Comcast, the Second Circuit affirmed its pre-Comcast precedent that the existence of individual damages determinations is merely one factor for district courts to consider in deciding whether to certify a class action. Further, the same day as these rulings, the Second Circuit issued an unpublished decision affirming a lower court ruling that certified an overtime class against employer Duane Reade for liability purposes, but that bifurcated the damages phase for individualized determinations. See Jacob v. Duane Reade, No. 13-3873-cv (2d. Cir. Feb. 10, 2015). Together, these rulings appear to signal the Second Circuit's commitment to afford district courts discretion to certify class actions even in the wake of tightening Supreme Court precedent. 'Comcast' Comcast involved an antitrust class action in which the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant Comcast's acquisition of several cable providers in a geographic cluster violated the antitrust laws. For support, the putative class of cable customers had pointed to four specific anti-competitive effects of the challenged clustering. 133 S. Ct. at 1430-31. In certifying a class, the district court accepted only one of those four bases for liability as viable, but relied on the plaintiffs' proof of class-wide damages that was premised on the success of all four theories. That is, the class plaintiffs had no damages theory limited to the one basis for liability the court had accepted. Id. at 1431. In affirming the district court's certification, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the mismatch between the plaintiffs' surviving liability theory and their proof for damages was not fatal at the class certification stage. It held that a class can be certified as long as plaintiffs show that "if they can prove antitrust impact, the resulting damages are capable of measurement and will not require labyrinthine individual calculations." Id. (quoting Comcast, 655 F.3d 182, 206 (3d. Cir. 2011)). The Court of Appeals ruled that a critique of the details of the plaintiffs' damages theory was an issue for the merits, not class certification. Id. The Supreme Court reversed. Citing its ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the court explained that class certification requires a "rigorous analysis" that commonly overlaps with the merits. 133 S. Ct. at 1432. The class-wide damages theory propounded by the plaintiffs could not support a calculation of damages based on the conduct for which the class was certified. According to the Supreme Court, this failure of proof made class certification impermissible because "[w]ithout presenting another methodology, respondents cannot show Rule 23(b)(3) predominance: Questions of individual damage calculations will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class." Id. at 1433. In short, the plaintiffs' class-wide damages theory failed because, under the rigorous analysis standard, it would require determinations of individual damages issues that would overwhelm issues common to the class. Second Circuit Decisions Based on recent Second Circuit precedent, class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) has not been dramatically cabined in the circuit following Comcast. In Roach and Sykes, the Second Circuit interpreted Comcast narrowly. In Roach, the Second Circuit held that Comcast concerned the failure of class-wide proof, but "did not hold that proponents of class certification must rely upon a classwide damages model to demonstrate predominance." 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2054, at *14 (emphasis added). In Sykes, the court similarly observed that "Comcast did not rewrite the standards governing individualized damage considerations." 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2057, at *40. Pursuant to the Second Circuit's analysis in both cases, therefore, when plaintiffs' claims require individualized damages determinations, district courts must still engage in an analysis under Rule 23(b)(3) to determine whether issues common to the class predominate over the individual issues, including the individualized considerations likely necessary for determining damages. Roach Case. Roach involved a putative class of hourly workers at the restaurant Applebee's who were allegedly denied certain wages and other payments wrongfully under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York labor law. The district court, in reviewing a magistrate judge's recommendation that a damages class be certified for the state law claims under Rule 23(b)(3),4 determined that certification was not appropriate under the intervening precedent of Comcast. See Roach v. T.L. Cannon, 3:10- CV-0591, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45373, at *8, 15 (N.D.N.Y March 29, 2013). Two claims at issue before the district court are relevant.5 First, the magistrate judge had certified in part a claim that the defendant had a policy of failing to pay hourly employees an extra hour for working a 10-hour day, as required under New York law. The plaintiffs' damages proof for that claim was in the form of affidavits from employees stating that, during their employment, "there were a number of occasions when . . . I was not paid an extra hour for the 10-hour spread." Id. at *8. According to the district court, this proof would require individual determinations of damages for each plaintiff, and contravened Comcast's requirement of class-wide proof. Id. at *10. Second, the magistrate judge had declined to certify a claim that managers of the defendant had a practice of altering time records to subtract rest breaks that employees had not taken. The magistrate judge found that although the commonality requirement under 23(a) had been met, the named plaintiffs did not adequately represent the class. The district court declined to certify this class on a different ground -- specifically, that the plaintiffs had failed to present class-wide proof of damages. Id. at *13. The district court concluded that Comcast did not permit class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for damages classes where "Plaintiffs [had] offered no model of damages susceptible of measurement across the entire putative break period class," and therefore denied certification. Id. at *15. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed. The court highlighted that prior to Comcast, it was well-established in the circuit that the need to ascertain damages on an individual basis was not sufficient to defeat certification under Rule 23(b)(3), but rather was one factor to consider in evaluating whether the individual issues or the issues subject to generalized proof predominated. 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2054, at *9. Comcast did not overturn this rule, but rather denied certification where the parties did not contest the district court's holding that the class should only be certified if the damages could be measured on a class-wide basis (and plaintiffs' expert testimony failed to prove they could). Id. at *12-13. Thus, the Second Circuit stated that Comcast's holding was simply that the proposed damages model must be considered at certification and that such a model must properly measure the damages resulting from the injuries alleged by the class.6 Id. at *14-16. The court thus vacated and remanded the district court's rejection of certification on that basis. Id. at *18-19. Sykes Case. Sykes upheld the certification of two classes of consumer debtors presenting Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state law claims, all revolving around the same fraudulent consumer debt collection scheme involving default judgments. The district court certified a class of plaintiffs who had default judgments entered against them in underlying debt collection litigation. In a 2-1 decision affirming certification of the classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)7 and 23(b)(3), the Second Circuit further clarified the requirements of these provisions following the Comcast decision. As in Roach, the court characterized Comcast's holding with respect to the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) as requiring that a damages theory match the plaintiffs' liability theory. See 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2057 at *39. In Sykes the plaintiffs' alleged damages stemmed from the actions set forth in their complaint, namely an overall pattern of fraudulent conduct that violated both state and federal law. Id. Damages could readily be calculated across the class, given the statutory formula for calculating damages under the FDCPA.8 Id. at *38. Further, the damages that were individualized related to the amount of the improperly obtained default judgment due back to each plaintiff -- amounts that were in the possession of the defendants. Id. Regarding the "rigorous analysis" required for class certification, the court rejected defendants' argument that the district court had not justified the conclusion that individualized damages questions would not overwhelm class issues. The court found that since the district court had identified a large number of common issues necessary to resolve the case in its predominance analysis, that analysis was sufficiently rigorous to meet the requirement. Id. at *40-41. The court also dismissed defendant's contentions that questions of timeliness and causation created sufficient individual issues to overwhelm the class. For instance, with respect to timeliness, the court stated that while some of the named plaintiffs may not be representative of the entire class because of timeliness issues, the practical import of certain of their claims requiring tolling would be the existence of subclasses, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(5).9 Id. at *44. In dissent, Judge Jacobs found various deficiencies in the majority's ruling, but focused principally on the availability of state procedures for vacating fraudulent judgments as a reason not to certify a class. Judge Jacobs reasoned that a federal class action was not superior to an available state procedure that, in this case, had already compensated the plaintiffs. Id. at *80. Regarding predominance, Jacobs indicated that individual statute of limitations issues demanded closer scrutiny than they had received; he discounted the import of management tools like subclasses as a way of accounting for individual issues and remarked that "[a] better-considered case-management tool is de- certification." Id. at *82. Duane Reade Case. On the same day as Sykes and Roach, the Second Circuit also affirmed a district court's judgment in certifying a class limited to the liability phase in Jacob v. Duane Reade. There, the plaintiffs were two former Duane Reade employees who alleged that the company was violating New York Labor Law because it did not pay overtime to assistant store managers. See slip. op. at 2. The district court had originally certified the 23(b)(3) class in its entirety, but the defendant subsequently moved for reconsideration in light of Comcast. Following Comcast, the district court judge decertified the class with respect to damages only. Id. at 3. As explained by the Second Circuit, "in decertifying the class with respect to damages, the district court concluded that although the individualized nature of the damages inquiry would defeat Rule 23(b)(3) predominance in the case as a whole, Rule 23(b)(3) predominance was satisfied with respect to [the] issue of liability alone . . . . That conclusion was within the district court's discretion." Id. at 5. Although this was a non-precedential opinion, it does serve to underline that individual issues of damages will not mean a class will not be certified, and that district courts have tools at their discretion to help support certification in Rule 23(b)(3) in appropriate cases, even when those cases involve individual damage determinations. Conclusion These cases thus illustrate the discretion the Second Circuit appears to be affording district courts to rely on these tools in certifying a class where individual damages issues exist but common class issues predominate. The court's reliance in Sykes on subclasses, when considered alongside the affirmance of bifurcating damages in Duane Reade, appears to highlight the tools available to district courts in certifying cases under Rule 23(b)(3), even where issues of individual damages calculations exist. Going forward, as class certification decisions continue to make their way to the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, it will be important for parties to monitor developments that further illuminate the bounds of that discretion. COOPER VISION: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01408 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 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: Alexander M. Schack, Esq., Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 485-6535 Facsimile: (858) 485-0608 E-mail: alexschack@amslawoffice.com natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com - and - Geoffrey J. Spreter, Esq., SPRETER LEGAL SERVICES, APC 601 3rd Street Coronado, CA 92118 Telephone: 619-865-7986 E-mail: spreterlegalservices@gmail.com - and - E. Elliot Adler, Esq. ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 531-8700 Facsimile: (619) 342-9600 E-mail: elliotadler@gmail.com COOPER VISION: Faces "Mah" Sui Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Mah, Andrew Morales, and Tamara O'Brien, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABB Concise Optical Group, LLC, Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Cooper Vision, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01406 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 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: Jack Wing Lee, Esq. Aron K. Liang, Esq. Derek G. Howard, Esq. Sean Tamio Tamura-Sato, Esq. MINAMI TAMAKI LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-9000 Facsimile: (415) 398-3887 E-mail: jlee@MinamiTamaki.com aliang@cpmlegal.com dhoward@minamitamaki.com seant@minamitamaki.com COOPER VISION: Faces "Hatridge" Suit Over Lens Resale Price ----------------------------------------------------------- Ginger Hatridge, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No. 0:15-cv-60663 (S.D. Fla., March 31, 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: Michael J. Ryan, Esq. Kelley B. Stewart, Esq. KRUPNICK CAMPBELL MALONE BUSER SLAMA HANCOCK LIBERMAN, P.A. 12 S.E. 7 Street, Suite 801 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 763-8181 Facsimile: (954) 763-8292 E-mail: mryan@krupnicklaw.com kstewart@krupnicklaw.com CORNING INC: Court Narrows Claims in Modern Holdings Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, ruled on Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants in the case docketed as MODERN HOLDINGS, LLC, GAY BOWEN, GREENLEAF PLANT FOOD WHOLESALE, INC., and BOBBIE LEMONS, Plaintiffs, v. CORNING INCORPORATED, KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-405-GFVT. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, in his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/AHzHyAfrom Leagle.com, ordered that the Motions to Dismiss filed by Corning Incorporated and Philips Electronics North America Corporation each be granted and denied in part; that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Philips Electronics be denied as it is moot; that the claims raised by Plaintiff Gay Bowen against Philips Electronics be dismissed with prejudice; and that the Plaintiffs' claims for strict liability, negligent misrepresentation and medical monitoring be dismissed with prejudice. Evan McDonald Rice -- 250 W Main St Ste 1900 Lexington, Kentucky 40507 -- The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters -- jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- , and Richard A. Getty -- rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- , The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Modern Holdings, LLC, Gay Bowen, Greenleaf Plant Food Wholesale, Inc., Bobbie Lemons, Otis Ford, Charles Ford, Rosetta Ford, and Gary Ford. Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by George L. Seay, Jr., Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP. Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Joseph F. Madonia -- joseph.madonia@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg. M. Stephen Pitt -- mspitt@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP, Mark L. Durbin -- mdurbin@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, Peter N. Moore -- peter.Moore@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, and George J. Miller -- gmiller@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Corning Incorporated Brian M. Johnson -- BJohnson@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, David Andrew Owen -- DOwen@dickinsonwright.com --, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett -- MStinnett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V.and Philips Electronics North America Corporation. CORNING INC: Koninklijke Philips Dropped From Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, granted the Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the case captioned MODERN HOLDINGS, LLC, GAY BOWEN, GREENLEAF PLANT FOOD WHOLESALE, INC., and BOBBIE LEMONS, Plaintiffs, v. CORNING INCORPORATED, KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants. ELBERT COX, JR., CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN, JOHN SPEARS, WANDA BEASLEY, DONALD KING, LINDSEY PENNINGTON, TERESA PRESTON, BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL NOS. 13-405-GFVT, 13-406-GFVT. According to District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, in his order entered March 31, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ewVk5qfrom Leagle.com, the court has no jurisdiction over Defendant Koninklijke Philips, the Dutch parent company of Defendant Philips Electronics North America. Consequently, it granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by Koninklijke Philips for lack of personal jurisdiction. Evan McDonald Rice -- 250 W Main St Ste 1900 Lexington, Kentucky 40507 -- The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters -- jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- , Mary Ann Getty, and Richard A. Getty -- rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- , The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Elbert Cox, Jr., Cecil Wayne Franklin, John Spears, Wanda Beasley, Donald King,Lindsey Pennington, Teresa Preston, and Beverly Presley. Adam Clay Reeves -- areeves@bdlegal.com --, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Brian M. Johnson -- BJohnson@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, David Andrew Owen -- DOwen@dickinsonwright.com --, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett -- MStinnett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V.and Philips Electronics North America Corporation. DECOSTER EGG: Salmonella Outbreak Caused Widespread Harm -------------------------------------------------------- Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that federal prosecutors are asking a judge to consider the "widespread harm" done by a nationwide salmonella outbreak in sentencing two egg industry executives whose company was responsible. In court documents filed on April 6, prosecutors said Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son Peter ran a company that for years "routinely disregarded food safety standards and practices." Prosecutors didn't ask for a specific term of jail, home confinement or probation. The DeCosters face up to a year in prison when sentenced next week. Both have pleaded guilty to introducing adulterated eggs into interstate commerce. The memo said the Decosters were generally aware that their Iowa egg facilities were at risk for producing salmonella-tainted eggs long before the 2010 outbreak, which sickened thousands. Prosecutors and defense lawyers have already recommended $7 million in fines. DESERT CHAMPIONS: Illegally Prints Credit Card Numbers, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michele Andrade, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Desert Champions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01394 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of printing the customer's first digit of credit or debit card numbers and expiration dates on the sales or transaction hardcopy receipts. Desert Champions LLC is a California company that operates the BNP Paribas Open professional tennis tournament in Indian Wells, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Robert William Spencer, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-7861 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com rspencer@kellergrover.com DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: May Face Wrongful Death Claims in U.S. ---------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Deutsche Lufthansa A.G. could face wrongful death claims in the United States by the families of the three Americans reported killed in the Germanwings jetliner crash in the French Alps on March 24, according to aviation attorneys tracking developments. French authorities reported that voice recorder evidence indicates co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked the captain out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the plane. The disaster killed all 150 people on board. The families of the Americans can almost certainly file claims in U.S. courts under the controlling international air transport treaty, said Mary Schiavo, a leader of the aviation team at Mount Pleasant, S.C.-based Motley Rice. Ms. Schiavo has represented passengers and crew in major U.S. air crashes. "They can bring a case in the U.S. and they should. The U.S. is a much better forum than France or Germany," Ms. Schiavo said. She cited the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that governs air passengers, baggage, cargo and disasters. The treaty allows passengers to bring claims in various forums -- where they bought their tickets, their planned final destination and the airline's headquarters, Ms. Schiavo said. Airlines defending cases in different countries following a crash will often try to get the claims consolidated, and "they're successful at least half of the time," Ms. Schiavo said. If claims survive that round, the next question is whether the crash falls under the Montreal Convention's caps on liability for accidents. At least in the United States, the definition of an accident under the convention has been interpreted "to mean any unexpected or unusual event," said Justin Green, a New York partner at Kreindler & Kreindler. He represented families of passengers and crew and people inside the World Trade Center towers during the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. "In order to enjoy that limit, the airline has to prove that it was without fault," Mr. Green said. Ultimately, Lufthansa, which owns Germanwings, would have to show it was not negligent in hiring or screening Mr. Lubitz or allowing him to be alone in the cockpit, Mr. Green said. U.S. airlines, for example, have rules against leaving one person in a cockpit. "That leads me to think the airline is not going to meet its burden of proving that it was without fault," Mr. Green said. According to news accounts, Mr. Lubitz interrupted his pilot training because of depression. If true, that could play into any court case, Ms. Schiavo said. "That's going to be an issue that people are going to want to know the answer to," she said. The facts, once they're clear, could support wrongful death or negligence claims but a settlement is the most likely outcome, said Daniel Suleiman, special counsel to Washington's Covington & Burling. Mr. Suleiman was Asiana Airlines Inc.'s lead litigator in the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation of that airline's July 2013 crash at San Francisco International Airport. Mr. Suleiman said the latest crash is a horrible tragedy for all involved, including Lufthansa. "It's hard to imagine what type of claim that could be brought that the airline would feel the need to defend in court," Mr. Suleiman said. DIRECT HEATING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Gettelman" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Gettelman, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Direct Heating & Cooling, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00172 (N.D. Fla., March 26, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of placing multiple telemarketing calls to telephone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. Direct Heating & Cooling, Inc. arises out of the Defendant's practice of placing multiple telemarketing calls to telephone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA 2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 298-4455 Facsimile: (850) 216-2537 E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Marie Moore, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., John Does 1-100, and Any Other Unknown Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00403 (M.D. Fla., March 31, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing non-emergency call using an artificial or prerecorded voice in an attempt to collect a debt. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc.is a collection agency headquartered in Coon Rapids, Minnesota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily C. Komlossy, Esq. Ross A. Appel, Esq. KOMLOSSY LAW, PA 2131 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 408 Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 842-2021 Facsimile: (954) 416-6223 E-mail: ekomlossy@komlossylaw.com raa@komlossylaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq. John C. Wang, Esq. SALAS WANG LLC 155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4250 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 803-4963 Facsimile: (312) 244-3151 E-mail: jsalas@salaswang.com - and - Joshua B. Kons, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC 50 Albany Turnpike, Suite 4024 Canton, CT 06019 Telephone: (860) 920-5181 Facsimile: (860) 920-5174 E-mail: joshuakons@konslaw.com DXP ENTERPRISES: Faces "Veloz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro A. Veloz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00794 (S.D. Tex., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours a week. DXP Enterprises, Inc. is an oilfield services company with its principal place of business at 7272 Pinemont Drive, Houston, Texas 77040. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq. BARON BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave, Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75214 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com EL GALLEGO: Faces "Colindres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Alfredo Colindres Colindres and all others similarly situated v. El Gallego Spanish Restaurant Inc., El Gallego Spanish Tavern Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-21254 (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM ENCINO MOTORCARS: "Service Advisers" Entitled to Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal appeals court has found that "service advisers" -- those people at the car dealership who give repair estimates -- are entitled to overtime pay under federal labor law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a March 24 opinion acknowledged that its ruling conflicted with the Fourth and Fifth circuits. Instead, the Ninth Circuit panel relied on an interpretation by the U.S. Department of Labor, which in 2011 refused to adopt proposed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act that would have included service advisers among the car dealership employees who are exempt from overtime pay. The FSLA overtime exemption covers "any salesman, parts man, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles." Circuit Judge Susan Graber found that "because plaintiffs do not fit within any of those definitions, they are not exempt from the FLSA's overtime wage provisions." She added, "Service advisors do none of those things; they sell services for cars. They do not sell cars; they do not stock parts; and they do not perform mechanical work on cars." The ruling means service advisers at dealers within the Ninth Circuit are now entitled to overtime pay, said plaintiffs attorney Keven Steinberg -- ksteinberg@finksteinberg.com -- a partner at Fink & Steinberg in Los Angeles who filed the suit in 2012 after the department's decision came out. "The case is the beginning of economic justice for automobile service advisers across the nation to resolve this ambiguity and hopefully allow them to be paid properly and fairly from here on out," he said. Todd Scherwin -- tscherwin@laborlawyers.com -- managing partner of the Los Angeles office of Fisher & Phillips, who represented the dealership, wrote in an email that his client is "exploring its options," including petitioning an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. "The decision reached by the Ninth Circuit breaks from the ranks of every other district court, state court and appellate court that has weighed in on this very same issue," he wrote. "Moreover, this academic exercise appellants are engaging in doesn't change the fact that service advisors are still exempt under both the FLSA and California law as commissioned salespersons." The panel reversed U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner's dismissal of a case brought by five service advisers who worked long hours daily for commissions at Encino Motorcars LLC, which owns a Mercedes-Benz dealership in Los Angeles. The panel acknowledged that its holding conflicts with prior decisions, including those in the Fourth and Fifth circuits -- on which Judge Klausner relied in dismissing the case -- as well as a 2013 ruling by the Montana Supreme Court in Thompson v. J.C. Billion Inc. But many of those decisions predated the "modern framework for deferring to an agency's interpretation," Judge Graber wrote. The panel also disagreed that the agency's interpretation was unreasonable, as both the Montana Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit held in Walton v. Greenbrier Ford, a 2004 decision. Both courts found that the FLSA exemption applied to service advisers. EXXON MOBIL: Details of $225MM Settlement With NJ State ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Catalini, writing for The Associated Press, reports that details of New Jersey's proposed $225 million settlement with Exxon Mobil over pollution around refineries in Linden and Bayonne were posted online on April 6, starting the clock on a legal process that will stretch into June and giving vocal opponents an opportunity to persuade a judge to kill the deal. Details of the proposed deal struck last month between the attorney general and the Texas-based oil company were published on the Department of Environmental Protection's website. Here's what you need to know about the four-page proposal: HOW IT WORKS The Department of Environmental Protection said the public has 60 days to comment and then it will decide whether to approve the agreement, which it is expected to do. Then, Judge Michael Hogan will issue a ruling on the offer. If he does not sign off, he may decide what the damage award should be, though it is common with agreements such as the one between the state and Exxon to be approved by the judge. Commenting on the settlement gives the commenter standing to pursue an appeal. THE DEAL'S DETAILS In addition to the Linden and Bayonne sites, the proposed settlement would resolve pollution claims at 16 service station sites across the state. It also proposes resolving claims at all services stations in New Jersey where, the department says in a news release, there was little or no damage and where there was no evidence of MTBE, a chemical compound used a gasoline additive. The department said litigating over these sites would cost taxpayers more than their expected value. The $225 million proposal would be the second-largest natural resource settlement against a corporate defendant in the country's history and the largest in state history, the department said in a statement. Only the Exxon-Valdez payout was larger. "We have vigorously litigated this case for the good of the environment and for the people of New Jersey," DEP Commissioner Bob Martin said in a statement. "On top of the historic payout for this natural resources damages settlement, there is no cap on what ExxonMobil must spend to complete the remediation work. ExxonMobil is also obligated to remediate all of the other, though far less contaminated, sites included in the proposed agreement." POLITICALLY VOLATILE News of the proposed settlement has become a political lightning rod because a report in the court documents had estimated that the state might recover up to $8.9 billion. Leaks of the deal appeared in the press before the attorney general discussed the details, and the Democrat-led Legislature criticized Republican Gov. Chris Christie's administration for accepting pennies on the dollar. New Jersey Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel bashed the proposal. "It's really the largest sellout in history," he said in an interview. Gov. Christie has publicly emphasized that Exxon Mobil must still clean the site. "Under this settlement, ExxonMobil's obligation to remediate the refinery sites - exclusively at its cost, which will be substantial -- is reaffirmed," acting Attorney General John Hoffman said in a statement. It's unclear how much cleanup will cost. Exxon Mobil will not speculate on the remediation process, said spokesman Todd Spitler said in a statement. Since 1991, the company has spent about $260 million to clean up the Linden and Bayonne sites under DEP supervision, Mr. Spitler said. BUDGET BATTLE If the deal goes forward, the settlement money would not be available until the start of the fiscal year -- July 1 -- at the earliest, Hoffman said last month. How that money is disbursed has also become the subject of a fierce debate. Under current law and as Christie proposed in his 2016 budget, the first $50 million of money recovered from natural resources settlements would go toward site cleanup and the rest would go toward the general fund. The Democratic-controlled Legislature has sent Gov. Christie a bill that would require half of the money from settlements of more than $50 million to be spent on cleanup. Gov. Christie has until May to decide if he'll veto the bill. FIVE STAR: Faces "Hartwell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa M. Hartwell, Alisha C. Settipane, Anthony M. DiCarlo, Barnard R. Gaul, and Juanita Franqui, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Five Star Resort Marketing, Inc., Sascha Morton, and Westgate Resorts, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00530 (M.D. Fla., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Five Star Resort Marketing, Inc. owns and operates a marketing company that markets Westgate Resorts' timeshares and vacation packages to the public. The Plaintiff is represented by: N. Ryan LaBar, Esq. Scott C. Adams, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS, PA 2300 E Concord St Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 835-8968 Facsimile: (407) 835-8969 E-mail: rlabar@labaradams.com sadams@labaradams.com FLORIDA HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Etienne" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Marjorie Etienne, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Florida Home Improvement LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00171 (N.D. Fla., March 26, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of placing multiple telemarketing calls to telephone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. Florida Home Improvement LLC is a company headquartered in Fort Walton Beach, Florida that offers home maintenance and repair services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA 2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 298-4455 Facsimile: (850) 216-2537 E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com GOGREENRIDE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harrison Osondu Iheke, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situate v. GoGreenRide Inc., and Yamandou Alexander, Case No. 1:15-cv-02483 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorney's fees and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing transportation services to customers in the New York City and Tri-state area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq. ABDUL K. HASSAN LAW GROUP PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: courtpoint@courtpoint.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that earlier in March, when U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest dismissed several defendants from antitrust litigation over an alleged scheme to drive up aluminum prices, the Litigation Daily and other legal news outlets suggested the case was all-but finished. But as the judge's latest ruling grudgingly makes clear, there's life in the case yet. Judge Forrest on March 26 trimmed some of the lawsuit -- including monopoly claims under Section 2 of the federal Sherman Act, and claims brought under certain state laws. But she also refused to dismiss antitrust claims against several defendants, including Goldman Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Securities plc, mining company Glencore Ltd., and aluminum warehouse operators Henry Bath LLC and Pacorini Metals USA LLC (a Glencore subsidiary). The ruling marks the latest twist in litigation that followed a 2013 New York Times report examining business practices in the aluminum warehousing industry. The Times reported that aluminum warehouses were colluding with the banks to hoard aluminum, generating rent from metal producers that served to drive up prices. Picking up on those allegations, Grant & Eisenhofer, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and other plaintiffs firms filed antitrust claims on behalf of aluminum purchasers and end-users. The suit targeted warehousing companies including Henry Bath (a former JPMorgan subsidiary) and Glencore's Pacorini Metals USA, and also Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, which profited from aluminum trades. The case has been an uphill battle for the plaintiffs so far, as the March 26 ruling attests. "Plaintiffs have spent thousands of pages assembling (or, trying out) various versions of claims," Judge Forrest wrote. "Were it not for the legal standards governing when enough is deemed enough (which allow for more than what this court might otherwise be inclined to tolerate), the trees felled in an effort to state a claim might be leafing even now." Judge Forrest granted an initial motion to dismiss in August, but at the time allowed plaintiffs lawyers to amend parts of their complaint and try again. Then, in a pair of rulings on March 3 and March 4, she dismissed the plaintiffs' amended claims against parent companies The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Pacorini Metals AG. Judge Forrest found their only connection to the alleged price-fixing was through their corporate affiliates. Those early March rulings, however, didn't consider the plaintiffs' amended claims against various affiliates of the parent companies. The March 26 ruling does, and declines to let any of them fully off the hook. Grant & Eisenhofer's Linda Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@gelaw.com -- told The Litigation Daily she's delighted that Judge Forrest's ruling will allow the case to move forward. The defense lineup in the case includes Sullivan & Cromwell (for Goldman and affiliates), Covington & Burling (for JPMorgan and its affiliates), Latham & Watkins (for Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd. and London Metal Exchange); Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (for Pacorini) and Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle (for Glencore). HARBINGER CAPITAL: Dist. Court Narrows Claims in Investors Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 31, 2015, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Sixth Amendment Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs in the case captioned In re Harbinger Capital Partners Funds Investor Litigation, NO. 12-CV-1244 (AJN). District Judge Alison J. Nathan, in her Opinion and Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/uqVLS2from Leagle.com, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, on Counts I, II, III, IV and IV, because of the Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts VI and VII and dismissed them without prejudice. Jacob H. Zamansky -- jake@zamansky.com -- Zamansky & Associates LLC, Steven E. Fineman -- sfineman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Amanda Marjorie Steiner -- as@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Christina H. C. Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel Patrick Chiplock, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Charles Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David A. Straite -- dstraite@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Zamansky & Associates, L.L.C., Jonathan K. Levine, Girard Gibbs LLP, Kevin Dugald Galbraith -- , The Law Office of Kevin Galbraith, Nicholas R. Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lili Schad, The Edward M. Armfield Sr. Foundation, Inc., and Randall Lang. Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Patrick Chiplock, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, David A. Straite, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Zamansky & Associates, L.L.C., Jacob H. Zamansky, Zamansky & Associates LLC, Kevin Dugald Galbraith, The Law Office of Kevin Galbraith, Nicholas R. Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Anil Bhardwaj and Klein Family Partnership L.P. Daniel J. Leffell -- dleffell@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Leslie Gordon Fagen, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Leslie Gordon, paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison & Steven Craig Herzog, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, Harbinger Holdings, LLC, Philip A. Falcone, Harbinger Capital Partners GP, L.L.C., Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations GP, L.L.C., Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Offshore GP, L.L.C. Gregory A. Clarick -- gclarick@cgr-law.com -- Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP, Isaac Berkman Zaur -- izaur@cgr-law.com -- Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP & Nicole L. Gueron -- ngueron@cgr-law.com -- Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Harbinger Capital Partners Fund I, L.P., Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situation Fund L.P., and Nominal Defendant Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Offshore Fund LP. HERBALIFE LTD: May 11 Final Approval Hearing in Bostick Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that final approval hearing is set for May 11, 2015, in the settlement in the case, Bostick, et al., v. Herbalife Int'l of Am., Inc., et al. On April 8, 2013, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging Herbalife's marketing practices and business structure under California laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes," unfair and deceptive business practices, and false advertising, as well as federal RICO statutes. On July 7, 2014, the complaint was amended to add additional plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. The federal RICO claim was dismissed. While the Company continues to believe the suit is without merit, and without in any way admitting liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company would (i) pay $15 million into a fund to be distributed to qualified claimants and (ii) accept up to a maximum amount of $2.5 million in product returns from qualified claimants. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on December 2, 2014 and conditionally certified a class. The final approval hearing is set for May 11, 2015. As of December 31, 2014, these amounts were adequately reserved for in the Company's financial statements. The Company has transferred $15 million to an escrow account which was included in prepaid expenses and other current assets within its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. HERBALIFE LTD: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Securities Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the hearing was set for March 9, 2015 on the Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint filed in the case In re Herbalife, Ltd. Securities Litigation (formerly captioned Awad v. Herbalife Ltd., et al.). On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class of investors that had purchased shares of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014. On July 30, 2014, the Court approved the appointment of different shareholders as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of counsel. On September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the Company, and certain of its officers. The Amended Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the defendants made material misstatements that "fundamentally misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company's business and operations to consumers and investors alike," and further alleges that the Company is one of "the most sophisticated pyramid schemes in history." The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the Company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 29, 2014. Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint was filed on November 3, 2014. The hearing was set for March 9, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend this purported class action suit. The Company has not recognized a loss as it does not believe a loss is probable. Further, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss. HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hilltop Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties to the consolidated class action entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court and certain other conditions, to settle the Consolidated Action. Each of Hilltop, Hilltop Securities Holdings LLC ("Hilltop Securities"), formerly Peruna LLC (wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), SWS Group, Inc. and the individual members of the board of directors of SWS have been named as defendants in two purported stockholder class action lawsuits arising out of the merger. Both lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court (Joseph Arceri v. SWS Group, Inc. et al and Chaile Steinberg v. SWS Group, Inc. et al filed April 8, 2014 and April 11, 2014, respectively). On May 13, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two actions (the "Consolidated Action") for all purposes. On June 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the SWS board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders by failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value or to engage in a fair sale process before approving the merger, that the SWS board of directors labored under conflicts of interest, that certain provisions of the merger agreement unduly restrict SWS's ability to negotiate with other potential bidders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted the SWS board of director's breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint further alleges, among other things, that the proxy statement/prospectus filed by Hilltop on May 29, 2014 omits or misstates certain material information. The complaints seek relief that includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the merger, rescission to the extent the merger terms have already been implemented, damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. On November 13, 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the Court and certain other conditions, to settle the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to the MOU, defendants, without admitting any wrongdoing, agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures requested by plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, as set forth in SWS's Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 14, 2014. In addition, Hilltop agreed to forbear from asserting certain rights under the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 31, 2014, by and among Hilltop, Hilltop Securities and SWS. The MOU further contemplates that, following confirmatory discovery, the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the former stockholders of SWS. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the MOU. HTH CORPORATION: Obligated to Pay Plaintiff's Counsel Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Hawai'i, on March 27, 2015, granted plaintiff's request for award of attorney's fees and costs in the case docketed as RAYMOND GURROBAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner/Plaintiff- Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. HTH CORPORATION; PACIFIC BEACH CORPORATION, Respondents/Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, NO. SCAP-12-0000764. Justice McKenna, in his Opinion of the Court, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/cFwQy3from Leagle.com, awarded Gurrobat attorney's fees amounting to $84,032.50, and general excise tax in the amount of $3,959.61. Gurrobat was also awarded costs in the amount of $435.55. Justice McKenna ruled that the Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the payment of Gurrobat's attorneys' fees and costs. James J. Bickerton -- bickerton@bsds.com -- and Stephen M. Tannenbaum -- tannenbaum@bsds.com -- Attorneys for Petitioner Raymond Gurrobat. Jeffrey H.K. Sia -- jeffrey.sia@hawadvocate.com -- Diane W. Wong -- diane.wong@hawadvocate.com -- and Brandon H. Ito -- brandon.ito@hawadvocate.com -- Attorneys for Respondents HTH Corporation and Pacific Beach Corporation. INDYMAC: Judge Awards $28.5 Mil. in Fees to Plaintiffs Lawyers -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that a Manhattan federal judge on March 24 awarded $28.5 million in fees to plaintiffs lawyers who negotiated a settlement with underwriters of IndyMac mortgage-backed securities -- but only after questioning how long the lawyers worked on the case and cutting a substantial slice from their "unreasonably high" requested award. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan took issue with several aspects of a $44.9 million fee bid by lawyers at Berman DeValerio, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and other firms who represented IndyMac investors in about 50 MBS trusts the bank sponsored before its collapse. Ultimately, Judge Kaplan's award of $28.5 million amounted to 8.2 percent of the $346 million settlement fund, rather than the 13 percent the lawyers sought. The award comes on the heels of a lackluster year for securities class settlements, which totaled $1.1 billion in 2014, according to a study released Tuesday by Cornerstone Research. That's the lowest total Cornerstone has recorded in a decade, and far below the average of $6.6 billion for the years 2005 to 2013. However, the IndyMac settlement, which won approval in February, was followed by the final approval of a $970.5 million settlement in a shareholder class action against American International Group Inc. related to AIG's subprime mortgage exposure. The IndyMac and AIG settlements alone promise to push securities class action settlement totals in 2015 above the 2014 figures compiled by Cornerstone. The two cases also highlight the power that individual judges wield over settlement economics for the securities plaintiffs bar. U.S. District Judge Laura Swain, who presided over the AIG case, approved $116.46 million in fees, or 12 percent of the total settlement fund, for lead plaintiffs counsel at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and The Miller Law Firm. That's almost exactly the percentage requested by the plaintiffs firms -- and rejected as excessive by Judge Kaplan -- in the IndyMac litigation. Judge Kaplan noted in the March 24 order that court-approved fees in securities class actions "seem to be getting smaller" -- receding from an average of 22.2 percent of the plaintiffs' total recovery in large cases settled between 1996 and 2013, according to one study. He also questioned the plaintiffs lawyers' claim to have spent nearly 14 years of combined hours on discovery alone in the IndyMac litigation. That total, the judge wrote, "borders on astounding" in a case where only 15 depositions were taken. (Berman DeValerio's Joseph Tabacco Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- didn't respond to a request for comment.) Judge Kaplan also took aim at the lawyers' references to attorney fee awards in other securities class action settlements greater than $100 million, in which the fee awards ranged from 17 to 20 percent. In many of those cases, the judge suggested, courts rubber-stamped boilerplate orders written by plaintiffs lawyers themselves, instead of conducting an independent analysis. "A nonrandom sample of five fee awards amounts to no more than looking out over a crowd and picking out one's friends," Judge Kaplan wrote. INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Key and Janet Gajewski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integrity Surveillance Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Integ Security Solutions, Case No. 2:15-cv-11235 (E.D. Mich., March 31, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful practice of placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers nationwide. Integrity Surveillance Solutions, Inc. is a Michigan corporation that offers a wide range of security options for home and business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com J&F ANALYSTS: Faces "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Romero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J&F Analysts, Inc., d/b/a The Breakfast Place, John J. Irwin, Sr., Debra Lee Irwin, and John Irwin, Jr., Case No. 4:15- cv-00790 (S.D. Tex., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in The Woodlands, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Starzyk, Esq. STARZYK AND ASSOC PC 10200 Grogans Mill Rd, Suite 300 The Woodlands, TX 77380 Telephone: (281) 364-7261 E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com JETRO HOLDINGS: Faces "Macias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alex A. Macias, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Jetro Holdings LLC, Jetro Cash and Carry Enterprises, LLC, Hyco Restaurant Supply CO., Restaurant Depot, LLC, Nathan Kirsh, Richard Kirschner, Stanley Fleishman, and Carl Telesnick, Case No. 1:15-cv-01571 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendants own and operate wholesale cash and carry stores, a chain that sells wholesale groceries to urban store owners around the United States, and which provides a wide selection of wholesale restaurant and catering supplies, food preparation equipment, and take-out containers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com JF MOORE: Faces "Gingrass" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Shane Gingrass, on his behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. J.F. Moore International, Inc., J.F. Moore, Inc., and James Moore, Case No. 4:15-cv-00837 (S.D. Tex., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing engineering services to oil fields drilling companies in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: J Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE BRAZIEL LLP 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com JMG RESTAURANT: "Barrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- German Barrera, Paulino Ortiz, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. JMG Restaurant Corp. et al, Case No. 1:15- cv-02373 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. JMG Restaurant Corp. owns and operates Cafe Luka and Fratelli Brick Oven Pizzeria in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: LaDonna Marie Lusher, Esq. Leonor Hidalgo Coyle, Esq. Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AINBINDER, LLP 111 Broadway, Ste. 1403 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com lcoyle@vandallp.com lambinder@bivas.net JNH FOOD: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Lukas Perez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. JNH Food, LLC, BBH Food LLC, and CNH Food, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01010 (N.D. Tex., April 1, 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 approximately 50 Pizza Hut franchise restaurants in Texas and Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. Thompson, Esq. WATTS GUERRA LLP 4 Dominion Dr, Bldg 3, Ste 100 San Antonio, TX 78257 Telephone: (210) 447-0500 Facsimile: (210) 447-0501 E-mail: rlt-bulk@wattsguerra.com - and - Jack D. McInnes, Esq. Richard M. Paul, Esq. PAUL MCINNES LLP 601 Walnut, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8104 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com paul@paulmcinnes.com - and - Mark A. Postashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & PTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd, Suite 133 Saint Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 KARIKAN DONUT: "Chavez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Omar Chavez and Rene Benito Romero-Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Achilles Pol Ygerinos, V Asilos Lambos, Martin Goldberg, and Karikan Donut Corp. d/b/a Munch Time Coffee Shop d/b/a Munch Time Pizza Express, Case No. 1:15-cv-02294 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate various restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren Paul Brian Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 11 Broadway, Suite 960 New York, NY 10117 Telephone: (212) 344-9022 Facsimile: (212) 344-0301 E-mail: darren@thekleinlawgroup.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Ky. Court Narrows Claims in "Cox" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, partially grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in the case docketed as ELBERT COX, JR., CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN, JOHN SPEARS, WANDA BEASLEY, DONALD KING, LINDSEY PENNINGTON, TERESA PRESTON, and BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-406-GFVT. The Plaintiffs in this putative class action lawsuit are former employees of Defendant, Philips Electronics North America. They claim that the Defendant "knowingly exposed them to hazardous substances used in the production process and falsely assured them that their working conditions were safe." District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, in his Memorandum Opinion and Order executed on March 31, 2015, partially granted and partially denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/0d8M8k from Leagle.com. Judge Tatenhove ordered that (1) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted; (2) the Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed with prejudice, except its claims for fraud and fraudulent concealment; (3) the Plaintiffs' claims for fraud be dismissed without prejudice; (4) the Defendants' Motion to Strike be denied for being moot; (5) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint be partially granted, such that they may amend their Complaint to "include the additional factual allegations and request for bifurcation set forth in the tendered amended complaint", and partially denied such that the Plaintiffs are not permitted to "amend their First Amended Class Action Complaint to allege the additional negligence per se claim"; and (6) the Plaintiffs are to file an amended complaint consistent with the Memorandum Opinion and Order within fourteen days from the date of the Order. Evan McDonald Rice -- 250 W Main St Ste 1900 Lexington, Kentucky 40507 -- The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters -- jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- Mary Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty -- rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- , The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Elbert Cox, Jr., Cecil Wayne Franklin, John Spears, Wanda Beasley, Donald King, Lindsey Pennington, Teresa Preston, and Beverly Presley. Adam Clay Reeves -- areeves@bgdlegal.com -- Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Brian M. Johnson -- BJohnson@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Attorney for Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corporation LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Wong" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware --------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Wong and Nagasubrahmanyam Kummaragunta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01478 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 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: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Property Owners Entitled to Flood Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that owners of a property damaged in Hurricane Sandy aren't entitled to reimbursement under the federal flood insurance program for removal of debris from elsewhere that was deposited in their yard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled in a case of first impression for federal appellate courts. The appeals court affirmed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson of the District of New Jersey that found plaintiffs Michael and Geraldine Torre were not entitled to reimbursement of $15,520 they paid to remove debris from outside their home in Mantoloking. Language in their Liberty Mutual policy under the Standard Flood Insurance Program, which covers expenses for removing "nonowned debris that is on or in insured property," applies to the house but not the entire parcel of land, the court ruled. The Torres' property sustained flood damage and they were reimbursed $235,751 for repairs, which included costs of removing storm-generated debris from the house, the Third Circuit's per curiam opinion said. The plaintiffs, who were self-represented, argued that "insured property" included their entire parcel of land, while Liberty Mutual took the position that "insured property" only applies to property insured under the flood insurance policy, which does not include land. Judges Thomas Ambro, Thomas Vanaskie and Dolores Sloviter said Liberty Mutual's interpretation is "the only reasonable one when viewed in light of the Standard Flood Insurance Program as a whole." The SFIP states that it covers damage to dwellings and other specified structures, as well as property associated with those structures, the court said. The program states that it does not cover land, land values, lawns, trees, shrubs, plants, growing crops, fences, retaining walls, seawalls or bulkheads, nor does it cover those portions of walks, walkways, decks, driveways, patios and other surfaces located outside the perimeter walls of the insured buildings, the court noted. "The entire parcel of land thus cannot constitute 'insured property,' because it is not insured by the SFIP at all," the court said. The panel rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the term "property" should be given its ordinary meaning, which includes land. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the term "insured property" means their property at 1234 Ocean Ave., in its entirety, because that is the property listed on the declarations page and thus is the property that is insured. The SFIP expressly distinguishes between the described location and the insured property, the panel said. The plaintiffs also argued that the policy's debris-removal provision should reimburse them for removing debris from the yard because, if it only pertained to the house, it would be listed in the article governing buildings rather than the article governing "other coverages." But the panel said the plaintiffs misunderstood the structure of the SFIP, which is organized by type of coverage rather than type of insured property. The court said the ruling, which was designated precedential, appears to be the first in which a federal court of appeals has interpreted the term "insured property" as it appears in the SFIP's debris-removal provision. The parties identified one other decision addressing a similar issue, Keating v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case from 2002. In that case, the court concluded that the terms of contract clearly provide that nonowned debris removal is covered only if the debris is in or on the building. One other decision addressing the same issue, Dickson v. American Bankers Insurance, issued in 2013 by the U.S. District Court for District of North Dakota, concluded that the provision does cover the removal of nonowned debris from the policyholder's land, but that case is "not persuasive on this point" because the court in that case did not address Keating, and provided very little reasoning and no legal support for its conclusion, the panel said. The plaintiffs did not return a call seeking comment on the ruling, nor did the lawyer for Liberty Mutual, Gerald Nielsen of the Nielsen Law Firm in Metairie, Louisiana. LONG SPRING: Faces "Candia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Caritino Candia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Long Spring Garden, Inc. (d/b/a Long Spring Garden) et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-01710 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. Long Spring Garden, Inc. owns and operates a Chinese restaurant located at 62-05 Roosevelt Avenue, Woodside, New York 11377. 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 "Duckworth" Suit Over Toxic Flooring -------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Duckworth, and Jay Duckworth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00042 (W.D.N.C, March 31, 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: Mona L. Wallace, Esq. William M. Graham, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. Cathy A. Williams, Esq. WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A. 525 N. Main Street Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com bgraham@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com cwilliams@wallacegraham.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roach" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ---------------------------------------------------------- Danny R. Roach, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00185 (E.D. Ark., April 1, 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: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON & VINES, PLLC 2226 Cottondale, Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72202 E-mail: (501) 0372-1300 Telephone: cjennings@johnsonvines.com - and - Todd Wooten, Esq. WOOTEN LAW FIRM 2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 218-6064 E-mail: todd@wootenlaw.net LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Fitzgerald" Suit Over Toxic Flooring --------------------------------------------------------------- James Fitzgerald and Jennifer Sbarboro v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02583 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 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. It is a retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. Francis Richard Greene, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: ccombs@edcombs.com fgreene@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com courtecl@edcombs.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Matthews" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------- Deberah Matthews, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00934 (E.D. La., March 26, 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. It is a retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dawn M. Barrios, Esq. Bruce S. Kingsdorf, Esq. Zachary L. Wool, Esq. BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, L.L.P. 701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650 New Orleans, LA 70139-3650 Telephone: (504) 524-3300 Facsimile: (504) 524-3313 E-mail: barrios@bkc-law.com bkingsdorf@bkc-law.com zwool@bkc-law.com - and - Gerald E. Meunier, Esq. M. Palmer Labert, Esq. GAINSBURGH BENJAMIN DAVID MEUNIER & WARSHAUER, LLC 2800 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163-2800 Telephone: 504-522-2304 Facsimile: 504-2528-9973 E-mail: gmeunier@gainsben.com plambert@gainsben.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------- Kandria Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02260 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 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. It is a retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and - Matthew R. Berry, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101-3000 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 E-mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com LYFT INC: Adds Keker & Van Nest to Defense Team ----------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that with a federal judge declaring earlier in March that a jury should decide whether Lyft Inc. has been misclassifying drivers as contractors under California state law, the company has beefed up its defense team. Lawyers at Keker & Van Nest, including partners Rachael Meny -- rmeny@kvn.com -- and R. James Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- entered appearances on behalf of Lyft two days after U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California let a proposed class action against the ride-hailing service survive a motion to dismiss. The Keker lawyers are supplementing Lyft's prior counsel from labor and employment firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. The employment class action against Lyft, originally filed in 2013, claims the company should provide drivers, currently classified as independent contractors, with certain benefits and protections due to employees under the California Labor Code. The same day Judge Chhabria issued his decision denying Lyft's motion to dismiss, his Northern District colleague Edward Chen gave the green light to a similar suit brought on behalf of drivers for Lyft's rival Uber Technologies Inc. Uber is represented in its suit by counsel at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Sued Over Blind Inaccessible Machines ------------------------------------------------------------- David Dicarlo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. McDonald's Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02273 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's denied blind individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services it provides to non-visually disabled customers through inaccessible Freestyle machines at thousands of McDonald's locations in New York State and throughout the United States. McDonald's Corporation is a national corporation that franchises, owns, leases and subleases a chain of fast food restaurants to tenants or franchisees throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com MICHIGAN: DOC Sued Over Failure to Provide Assistance for Deaf -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ann McBride, Brian Stanley Wittman, and Ralph Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Michigan Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-11222 (E.D. Mich., March 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide effective communication and other necessary accommodations and assistance to prisoners who are deaf or hard of hearing that enable them to adequately maintain contact with loved ones, have access to educational opportunities (including academic classes, vocational training, and other programs) offered to prisoners, access necessary medical care, participate in religious services, or access telephone and television services. Michigan Department of Corrections owns and operates 33 correctional facilities throughout Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris E. Davis, Esq. MICHIGAN PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC. 4905 Legacy Parkway, Suite 500 Lansing, MI 48911-4264 Telephone: (517) 487-1755 E-mail: cdavis@mpas.org - and - Abraham Singer, Esq. KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400 Detroit, MI 48226-5485 Telephone: (313) 965-7900 E-mail: abraham.singer@kitch.com - and - Andrew D. Lazerow, Esq. Stephen C. Bartenstein, Esq. Matthew J. Hegreness, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Facsimile: (202) 778-6000 E-mail: alazerow@cov.com sbartenstein@cov.com mhegreness@cov.com - and - Deborah M. Golden, Esq. Elliot M. Mincberg, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 Facsimile: (202) 319-1010 E-mail: Deborah_golden@washlaw.org elliot_mincberg@washlaw.org MOLYCORP INC: Colorado Securities Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed on March 31, 2015, the case captioned In Re MOLYCORP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 12-CV-00292-RM-KMT, an uncertified securities fraud class action. District Judge Raymond P. Moore, in his Order dated March 31, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/3Uc1QSfrom Leagle.com, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; dismissed, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint; and, gave Plaintiffs leave to file an Amended Complaint within 35 days from the date the said Order was entered. Robert Grabowski, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Marjorine Dowd, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Jayne McCarthy, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Kyle Hare, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Eugene R. Salmon, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Joseph Martiny, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Robert DeStefano, Plaintiff, represented by Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. John F. Ashburn, Jr., Defendant, represented by Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, and Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Ross R. Bhappu, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. John L. Burba, Defendant, represented by Eric Neil Landau -- elandau@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Kevin Hugh Logan -- klogan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, and Travis Shenandoah Biffar -- tbiffar@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. Craig M. Cogut, Defendant, represented by Stephen M. Baldini -- sbaldini@akingump.com -- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, and Brian Thomas Carney -- bcarney@akingump.com -- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP. Brian T. Dolan, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Mark Kristoff, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Charles R. Henry, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Jack E. Thompson, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Russell D. Ball, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Alec Machiels, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.. Pegasus Capital Advisors, L.P., Defendant, represented by Stephen M. Baldini -- sbaldini@akingump.com -- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, and Brian Thomas Carney -- bcarney@akingump.com -- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP. RCF Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen Kirk Ingebretsen -- kingebretsen@shb.com -- Sander Ingebretsen & Wake, P.C, and Daniel F. Wake -- dwake@shb.com -- Sander Ingebretsen & Wake, P.C.. T-II Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Adam Berger -- dberger@abv.com -- Allegaert Berger Vogel LLP. Knight Capital Americas, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.. CIBC World Markets Corp., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.. Piper Jaffray & Co., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.. RBS Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.. Dahlman Rose & Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D.K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, and Peter George Koclanes -- pkoclanes@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.. Molycorp Shareholder Group, Plaintiff, represented by J Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Angelo Albano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP. Edward Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Nobel -- jnobel@snliaw.com -- Izard Nobel LLP. The Allen Group, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Mark Villanueva -- 1755 Blake St, #225 Denver, CO 80202 -- Jeffrey M. Villanueva, P.C., and Nicole Susan Schram -- 1755 Blake St, #225 Denver, CO 80202-- Jeffrey M. Villanueva, P.C.. Molycorp, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, and Allison Kaye Kostecka -- akostecka@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Mark A. Smith, Defendant, represented by Eric Neil Landau -- elandau@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, GGregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kevin Hugh Logan -- klogan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, and Travis Shenandoah Biffar -- tbiffar@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. James S. Allen, Defendant, represented by Eric Neil Landau -- elandau@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, GGregory J. Kerwin -- gkerwin@gibsondunn.com, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kevin Hugh Logan -- klogan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, and Travis Shenandoah Biffar -- tbiffar@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. Philip Marner, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP, Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Benjamin James Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, John Jay Gross, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Joshua Angelo Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Meredith Leigh Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Michael Keith Yarnoff -- myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Regis C. Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP. Jerry W. Jewell, individually and as Trustee for the Jerry W. Jewell Trust, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP, Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Benjamin James Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, John Jay Gross, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Joshua Angelo Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Meredith Leigh Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Michael Keith Yarnoff -- myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Regis C. Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP. Donald McAlpin, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP, Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Benjamin James Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, John Jay Gross, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Joshua Angelo Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Meredith Leigh Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Michael Keith Yarnoff -- myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Regis C. Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP. Randall Duck, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Allen Berens -- contact@dyerberens.com -- Dyer & Berens, LLP, Trig Randall Smith -- trigs@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Benjamin James Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, John Jay Gross, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jonah H. Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Joshua Angelo Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Meredith Leigh Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Michael Keith Yarnoff -- myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Regis C. Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP. Sean L. Harrington, Interested Party, represented by Charles Walter Lilley -- clilley@LilleyLaw.com -- Charles Lilley & Associates PC. Gordon Bratter, Interested Party, represented by Kim Elaine Miller -- kimmiller225@yahoo.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Durocher" Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on March 31, 2015, granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations in the case captioned JOHN DUROCHER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DARIN HARRIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ANTHONY MIRANDO, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Transferred per the conditional transfer order to the Northern District of Illinois, RIDDELL, INC., ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION doing business as RIDDELL/ALL AMERICAN, RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC., EASTON-BELL SPORTS, INC., EASTON-BELL SPORTS, LLC, EB SPORTS CORPORATION, RBG HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendants, NO. 1:13-CV-01570-SEB-DML. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike, stating "defendants set forth a persuasive argument supported by the facts of the SAC and controlling legal precedent that Plaintiffs' current class definition should not be certified and that granting a motion to strike is the appropriate means by which class action allegations that cannot be certified are disposed of." Furthermore, she ruled that the Defendants were not able to definitively establish that a class action cannot be maintained in any form. She granted the Plaintiffs an "opportunity to narrow and more specifically define their proposed class in light of and consistent with the law and facts discussed herein." A copy of Judge Barker's Order is available at http://is.gd/2bcYK1 from Leagle.com. David B. Franco -- One Canal Place - Suite 1000, 365 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA70130 -- THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC, Don Barrett -- info@barrettlawgroup.com -- BARRETT LAW OFFICE PA, Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, Irwin B. Levin -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, James Dugan -- One Canal Place - Suite 1000, 365 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA70130 -- THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC, Lynn A. Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Richard E. Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Scott D. Gilchrist -- sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Vess Allen Miller -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP & Wendy Ruth Fleishman -- wfleishman@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASHER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP., Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Johnn Durocher, Darin Harris, Anthony Mirando Mark S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Attorney for Defendant NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Defendant, represented by Cary A. Slobin -- cary.slobin@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN & BROOKE, LLP, Paul Cereghini -- paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN & BROKE LLP, Randall R. Riggs -- rriggs@fbtlaw.com -- FROST BROWN TODD LLC & Robert Latane Wise -- rob.wise@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, Attorneys for Defendants RIDDELL, INC., ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION, RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC., and EASTON-BELL SPORTS, INC. NNS TRADING: "Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jocelyn Pierre, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NNS Trading, Inc., Ilan Shimon, and Dani Shimon, Case No. 0:15- cv-60625 (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other relief in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a security guard service company that regularly transacts business within Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Bernard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 243-4295 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com NORTHERN TRUST: Sued Over Misleading Plan Amendment Notice ---------------------------------------------------------- James P. Teufel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Northern Trust Company, The Northern Trust Company Pension Plan, The Northern Trust Company Employee Benefit Administrative Committee, and John and Mary Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02822 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by providing a deceptive and misleading notice of the 2012 Amendment notice that falsely assured participants that benefits earned under the Traditional Benefit Formula through March 31, 2012, would not be impacted by the 2012 Amendment. The Defendants own and operate an Illinois banking corporation with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracey L. Wolfe, Esq. Luke DeGrand, Esq. DEGRAND & WOLFE, P.C. 20 South Clark Street, Suite 2620 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 236-9200 Facsimile: (312) 236-9201 E-mail: twolfe@degrandwolfe.com ldegrand@degrandwolfe.com PACCAR INC: Sued in D.N.J. Over Defective Vehicles Engine & ATS --------------------------------------------------------------- BK Trucking Co. and Santelli Trucking, Inc, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Paccar, Inc., Paccar Engine Company, Kenworth Truck Company, and Peterbuilt Motors Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-02282 (D.N.J., March 31, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business practices of selling trucks and other heavy duty vehicles with defective PACCAR MX-13 diesel engines and After-Treatment System with integrated systems and their parts and components (ATS). The Defendants are international manufacturers and distributors of heavy-duty commercial vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 475 White Horse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Telephone: (856) 858-1770 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com - and - John W. Trimble, Esq. TRIMBLE & ARMANO 900 Route 168 Suites B1-B2 Turnersville, NJ 08012 Telephone: (856) 232-9500 Facsimile: (856) 232-9698 E-mail: john.trimble@trimbleandarmano.com - and - Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq. COHEN, MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com PATRIOT PAYMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Goli Ranekouhi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Patriot Payment Group LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00492 (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing non-emergency call using an artificial or prerecorded voice in an attempt to collect a debt. Patriot Payment Group LLC is engaged in the business of assisting merchants with credit card processing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr. #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866)633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com POTOMAC FAMILY: "Grubb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Allen Grubb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Potomac Family Dining Group Operating Company LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00132 (E.D. Va., March 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorney's fees and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Potomac Family Dining Group Operating Company LLC owns and operates 69 Applebee's franchise restaurants throughout West Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Allen Schreiber, Esq. BURKE HARVEY, LLC 3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 930-9091 Facsimile: (205) 930-9054 E-mail: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com - and - Todd Michael Gaynor, Esq. GAYNOR LAW CENTER PC 440 Monticello Ave, Suite 1800 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 828-3739 E-mail: tgaynor@gaynorlawcenter.com PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Forseter" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Forseter and Kayla Joy Sherwood, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00499 (W.D. Wash., March 31, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally-identifiable information and personal health information. Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in Montlake Terrace, Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101-1170 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 Facsimile: (206) 343-9636 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com - and - Robert S. Schachter, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 Facsimile: (212) 371-5969 E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com sshah@zsz.com - and - Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Ste. 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2495 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cossey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Tennielle Cossey, Kathleen Connor and Donald Bruce Mountjoy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00472 (W.D. Wash., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally-identifiable information. Premera Blue Cross is a health insurance provider that offers comprehensive health, life, vision, dental, stop-loss, disability, and workforce wellness services. Its corporate headquarters are located at 7001 220th Street SW, Mountlake Terrace, Washington, 98043. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com - and - Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. James J. Bilsborrow WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Facsimile: (646) 293-7937 E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Steven W. Teppler, Esq. F. Catfish Abbott ABBOTT LAW GROUP P.A. 2929 Plummer Cove Road Jacksonville, FL 32223 Telephone: (904) 292.1111 Facsimile: (904) 292-1200 E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com fabbott@abottlawpa.com - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com PTC SEAMLESS: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Eckelkamp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PTC Seamless Tube Corp. et al, Case No. 5:15-cv-00073 (W.D. Ky., March 26, 2015), arises out unlawful practice of terminating employees without cause and failing to provide 60 days advance written notice of termination. PTC Seamless Tube Corp. is a Delaware corporation that provides steel tubing and pipe solutions to multiple industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Regina A. Jackson, Esq. ENGLISH, LUCAS, PRIEST & OWSLEY LLP 1101 College Street, P.O. Box 770 Bowling Green, KY 42102-0770 Telephone: (270) 781-6500 Facsimile: (270) 782-7782 E-mail: rjackson@elpolaw.com RCI HOSPITALITY: "Clark" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Asia O. Clark, Charlene A. Beatty-Bell, Ebony N. Beyah, Princess N. Fowler, and Nikki J. St. John, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., RCI Entertainment (North Carolina), Inc., and Top Shelf Entertainment, LLC, d/b/a Club Onyx Charlotte, Case No. 3:15-cv-00141 (W.D.N.C, April 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment nightclub located at 5300 Old Pineville Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28217. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jule Seibels Northup, Esq. NORTHUP MCCONNELL & SIZEMORE, PLLC 123 Biltmore Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 232-4481 Facsimile: (828) 232-4482 E-mail: jsn@northupmcconnell.com REGENCY ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Merger Plans ------------------------------------------------------------- Leonard Cooperman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regency Energy Partners LP, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00978 (N.D. Tex., March 30, 2015), alleges the proposed transaction to merge Regency Energy Partners LP with and into Energy Transfer Partners, GP, L.P. is not focused on the interests of Regency's unit-holders and its merger consideration severely undervalues Regency given its recent performance and long term prospects. Regency Energy Partners LP is a Delaware limited partnership, headquartered at 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 3700, Dallas, Texas 75201. It specializes in the gathering and processing, contract compression, contract treating, transportation, fractionation and storage of natural gas and natural gas liquids. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Kelly Puls, Esq. Mark A. Haney,Esq. PULS HANEY, P.L.L.C. 300 Burnett Street, Suite 160 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 338-1717 Facsimile: (817) 332-1333 E-mail: kelly@pulshaney.com mark@pulshaney.com RESONANT INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resonant Inc., Terry Lingren, and John Philpott, Case No. 2:15-cv-02369 (C.D. Cal., March 31, 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. Resonant Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which focuses on creating filter designs for radio frequency ("RF") front-ends in the mobile device industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 285-5330 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com RESPONSIVE DATA: Has Sent Spam Ads, "Stewart" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Responsive Data, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02383 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending spam advertisements and promotional offers via text messages. Responsive Data, LLC owns and operates an advertising agency that conducts business in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr. #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866)633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com RIDDELL INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Durocher" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on March 31, 2015, partly denied and partly granted Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants in the case docketed as JOHN DUROCHER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DARIN HARRIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RIDDELL, INC., ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION doing business as RIDDELL/ALL AMERICAN, RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC., EASTON-BELL SPORTS, INC., EASTON-BELL SPORTS, LLC, EB SPORTS CORPORATION, RBG HOLDINGS CORPORATION, KRANOS CORPORATION doing business as Schutt Sports, Defendants, NO. 1:13-CV-01570-SEB-DML. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker, in her Order entered March 31, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/p9gOU8from Leagle.com, ruled that: -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claim for Medical Monitoring is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Common-Law Negligence Claim is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Products Liability Claim related to an alleged design defect is DENIED. -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Products Liability Claim related to an alleged manufacturing defect is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Products Liability Claim related to an alleged failure to warn is DENIED. -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Products Liability Claim based on proximate cause is DENIED. -- Defendants' Motion to dismiss Easton-Bell Sports, Inc. is DENIED. -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Easton-Bell Sports, LLC; EB Sports Corp.; and RBG Holdings Corp. is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. -- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' SAC based on the statute of limitations is DENIED. David B. Franco -- One Canal Place - Suite 1000, 365 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA70130 -- THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC, Don Barrett -- info@barrettlawgroup.com -- BARRETT LAW OFFICE PA, Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, Irwin B. Levin -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, James Dugan -- One Canal Place - Suite 1000, 365 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA70130 -- THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC, Lynn A. Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Richard E. Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Scott D. Gilchrist -- sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Vess Allen Miller -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP & Wendy Ruth Fleishman -- wfleishman@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASHER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP., Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Johnn Durocher, Darin Harris, Anthony Mirando Mark S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Attorney for Defendant NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Defendant, represented by Cary A. Slobin -- cary.slobin@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN & BROOKE, LLP, Paul Cereghini -- paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN & BROKE LLP, Randall R. Riggs -- rriggs@fbtlaw.com -- FROST BROWN TODD LLC & Robert Latane Wise -- rob.wise@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP, Attorneys for Defendants RIDDELL, INC., ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION, RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC., and EASTON-BELL SPORTS, INC. RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $13MM Verdict to Smoker's Widow -------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a Fort Lauderdale jury handed down a $13 million verdict for the widow of Paul Pollari, an Oakland Park butcher who smoked for about 50 years and died in 1994 after being diagnosed with lung cancer. Jurors awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages against cigarette manufacturers R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA in the trial before Broward Circuit Judge John Murphy III. "This is another case involving a man who got addicted to cigarettes as a teenager when there were no warnings on cigarette packs and when more than 50 percent of doctors smoked," said Kelley/Uustal attorney Todd McPharlin, who teamed with colleagues Eric Rosen and Kim Wald, as well as Alex Alvarez from the Alvarez Firm in Coral Gables, to represent Mr. Pollari's widow, Rose. They said Mr. Pollari smoked from his early teens in the 1940s to August 1993 when he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He started smoking Camel cigarettes and switched to Kools in 1964 and Marlboros in 1971. In the 1980s, he switched to Marlboro Lights. "Paul Pollari tried to quit many times and switched to light cigarettes, which he mistakenly believed were safer," Mr. McPharlin said. "He never knew all the things tobacco companies were doing to make cigarettes more addictive." Mr. Pollari underwent chemotherapy and radiation, but doctors said nothing could save him. His widow sued R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris in an Engle progeny case, the landmark tobacco class action named for the lead plaintiff, Miami Beach pediatrician Howard Engle. The Florida Supreme Court in 2006 struck the $145 billion award and decertified the Florida smokers' class action verdict against industry-leading cigarette makers, forcing smokers or their families to file individual lawsuits. Attorneys argued Mr. Pollari was addicted to nicotine in cigarettes, which led to primary lung cancer and death. Ursula Henninger of King & Spalding in Charlotte, North Carolina, represented R.J. Reynolds, while Kenneth Reilly -- kreilly@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Miami, handled the litigation for Philip Morris. They did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. The jury assigned 15 percent of the blame to Mr. Pollari and divided the remaining 85 percent liability evenly between Reynolds and Philip Morris. It awarded $10 million in damages to Mr. Pollari's widow for the loss of her husband's companionship and protection and for her mental pain and suffering. It also found the two companies concealed or omitted information about their product's ability to harm users and that Mr. Pollari relied on that information. As a result, jurors awarded punitive damages of $1.5 million each against the two companies. "Not only does the verdict help Mrs. Pollari find some semblance of closure, it's another example of jurors seeing big tobacco's decades-long ruse for what it was -- a lie -- and holding them accountable," Mr. McPharlin said. The Pollari case was the second major tobacco victory in as many months for the South Florida plaintiffs team. In February, a jury sided with the Kelley/Uustal and the Alvarez Law Firm in a case that pitted widow Vicki McKeever against Philip Morris. It handed down a $17.4 million verdict in that case, including $11.6 million in punitive damages. SAFE ENVIRONMENT: Faces "Boodhoo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Rohani Boodhoo, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safe Environment Business Solutions, Inc., and Jet Way Security & Investigations, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01733 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing security services to clients across the United Sates. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com SNYDER'S-LANCE: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew McDonough individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01751 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading product label of Cape Cod; Snyder's of Hanover and EatSmart brands as All Natural when in fact those products contained unnatural genetically-modified organisms. Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is a salty snack maker thatb maintains its principal place of business at 13024 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 900, Charlotte, North Carolina 28277. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 646-0500 E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com ggranade@reeserichman.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. Dustin Massie, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com massie@halunenlaw.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP. 54000 S. University Drive, Suite 413 Davie, Florida 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com STAIN-AWAY LLC: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar Velazquez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stain-Away, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02265 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose its intentional recording of telephone communications. Stain-Away, LLC is a New York limited liability company that offers roof cleaning and pressure washing services. 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 STEVEN SANN: Pleads Guilty in Phone "Cramming" Scheme Case ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a Montana man pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering after prosecutors said his companies ran up $70 million in unauthorized charges on phone bills across the nation in a "cramming" scheme. Cramming involves tricking customers into paying for services they didn't authorize or receive, prosecutors said. The U.S. Attorney's Office alleged the case against 59-year-old Steven Sann of Stevensville involved voicemail accounts and fax services people may have unwittingly signed up for while answering questions on websites offering free products or job-search assistance. Hundreds of complaints about monthly charges from $9.95 to $24.95 led Mr. Sann's companies to return more than $40 million, authorities said. Data collected by the Federal Trade Commission found many customers didn't know they were being charged. From March 2010 to April 2012, less than 1 percent of the people purportedly with voicemail accounts through the companies actually accessed them. The FTC brought civil action against Mr. Sann, his wife, his son, Nathan, their accountant and nine companies in January 2013, asking a federal court to shut down the operation. The agency said companies run by the Sanns started tacking on unauthorized phone charges in 2008. The companies listed were: American eVoice, Ltd.; Emerica Media Corp.; FoneRight Inc.; Global Voice Mail, Ltd.; HearYou2, Inc.; Network Assurance, Inc.; SecuratDat, Inc.; Techmax Solutions, Inc.; and Voice Mail Professionals, Inc. Nathan Sann has said they stopped charging customers in April 2012. He reached an agreement with the FTC in November that bans him from placing charges on consumers' phone bills. It called for a $21 million judgment, but that amount would be suspended if Sann surrendered precious metal coins to the agency. The value of the coins was unclear. Steven Sann was initially charged with 32 counts of wire fraud, two counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy. He pleaded guilty to one count each of wire fraud and money laundering on March 27 during a hearing before U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen. His attorney, Peter Lacney, said the plea agreement recommends a two-year prison term when Mr. Sann is sentenced on July 17. The FTC case against Steven Sann was put on hold pending the outcome of the criminal case, Mr. Lacney said. It was not immediately clear Monday where the FTC case against Sann's wife stood. An FTC spokesman did not immediately return a phone message from The Associated Press. SUPERIOR ENERGY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adan Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., d/b/a SPC Rentals, and Warrior Energy Services, Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-00144 (S.D. Tex., March 26, 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 specialize in providing oilfield services to various drilling and production companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE BRAZIEL LLP 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com TEKSOLV INC: Faces "Thurston" Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael L. Thurston and James S. Newell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Teksolv, Inc., Case No. 5:15- cv-00592 (N.D. Ohio, March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Teksolv, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that provides professional service solutions for industrial markets, focusing on safety and training services, systems integrations and oilfield automation services, engineering consulting, and environmental and occupational health services. The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Collum, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. COLLUM Ste. 400, 4774 Munson Street, NW Canton, OH 44718 Telephone: (330) 494-4877 Facsimile: (330) 433-1313 E-mail: jcollum@collumlawoffice.com TROY MOTORS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers OT, "Harnden" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Harnden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Troy Motors, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-11238 (E.D. Mich., April 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Troy Motors, Inc. is a Michigan corporation that operates as a used luxury car dealer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq. DIB AND FAGAN PC 25892 Woodward Ave Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@dibandfagan.com - and - Megan A. Bonanni, Esq. Kevin M. Carlson, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C. 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com TRUST SECURITY: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Perez, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Trust Security Services, Inc., Palmetto Ford Truck Sales, Inc., Jose C. Lugones, Case No. 1:15-cv-21203 (S.D. Fla., March 26, 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 security guard service company that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM UNI-PIXEL INC: Filed Answer to SDNY Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Uni-Pixel, Inc. filed an answer to the class action complaint pending in the Southern District of New York, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. "In June 2013, two purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas against the Company and our CEO, CFO, and Chairman," the Company said. "The Southern District of New York complaint was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July 2, 2013. The surviving complaint alleges that we and our officers and directors violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and misleading statements concerning our licensing agreements and product development. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the period from December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013." "On July 25, 2014, the judge granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the case, significantly limiting the claims remaining in the case. On August 25, 2014, we filed an answer to the class action complaint. We will continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company has directors' and officers' and corporate liability insurance to cover some of the risks associated with securities claims filed against the Company or its directors and officers and has notified its insurers of these actions." UNI-PIXEL INC: Entered Into MOU to Settle Texas Securities Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Uni-Pixel, Inc. entered into memorandums of understanding to settle the securities class action lawsuit and consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. "In November 2014, we entered memorandums of understanding to settle the following previously disclosed lawsuits: a) the securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, captioned Fitzpatrick, Charles J. v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., et. al. (Cause No. 4:13-cv-01649); and b) the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, captioned In re Uni-Pixel, Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Cause No. 2014-08251)," the Company said. "If completed, the class action settlement would result in a payment of $2.35 million in cash to the settlement class, inclusive of fees and expenses. In addition, Uni-Pixel would issue $2.15 million in common stock to the settlement class with a range of shares of common stock between 358,333 shares and 430,000 shares, calculated by using the trailing 5 day average stock price from the date of court approval of settlement. The proposed consolidated derivative settlement would result in a payment of $150,000 in cash, the issuance of $125,000 of Uni-Pixel common stock with a range of shares of common stock between 20,833 shares and 25,000 shares, calculated by using the trailing 5 day average stock price from the date of court approval of settlement, and certain governance improvements. The common stock portions of both potential settlements, totaling, $2,275,000 is included in Other Expense and in current liabilities (Settlement of Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits) on the accompanying consolidated financial statements. "The Company anticipates the Settlement of Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits liability will be reclassified to Additional Paid In Capital and Common Stock upon the issuance of common stock in connection with the final settlement anticipated to be in May 2015. The Company anticipates that the cash payment portions of both settlements, totaling $2.5 million, will be paid from insurance proceeds, and no amounts have been recorded in the financial statements. The Company cannot provide any assurance that the potential settlements will ultimately be finalized or approved." UNITED PARCEL: Pregnancy Ruling to Have Implications for Employers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on one of the most significant employment- related cases of the term. In Young v. United Parcel Service, the justices looked at a former UPS driver's claim that her employer discriminated against her when she became pregnant and was medically no longer able to lift heavy packages. The court found something of a middle ground in its ruling, and did not outright reject UPS's policy (which has since been revised) on working while pregnant. However, the ruling does provide some guidance for employers dealing with potential liability from pregnancy discrimination claims, as well as those trying to prevent claims in the first place. The case stems from a request that Peggy Young made in 2006 for UPS to give her light duty during her pregnancy, as Ms. Young's doctor recommended avoiding heavy lifting while pregnant. UPS refused her request because at the time it only accommodated employees injured on the job, those qualified under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and those who lost their licenses for drunk driving or other reasons. Ms. Young sued under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an amendment to the Civil Rights Act passed in 1978 that says discrimination against women on the basis of pregnancy or related conditions should be treated as discrimination based on sex. Ms. Young claimed that allowed her the same opportunities for light duty accommodations as UPS workers impacted by other conditions. In a 6-3 ruling, with Justice Stephen Breyer authoring the majority opinion, the court did not go so far as to strike down the UPS policy as illegal, or uphold Young's arguments. What the ruling did do was put forward a process by which workers like Young may prove that they experienced discrimination. It clarified that employees can prove discrimination using a test from McDonnell Douglas v. Green, in which plaintiffs have to show that they belong to a protected class, sought accommodation and were denied it, but that their employers did accommodate others similar in their ability or inability to work. So what's the fallout for employers worried about preventing pregnancy discrimination claims? Katherine Kimpel, managing partner at Sanford Heisler Kimpel, told CorpCounsel.com that this development shouldn't be too onerous for companies. "In terms of in-house attorneys, the takeaway is that they need to be really mindful and really careful when making decisions about accommodations," she said. "If they are providing accommodations to employees in other circumstances, what the Supreme Court has said is that they are going to have to answer for that if they then deny accommodations to pregnant women." In light of the ruling, employers would be best advised to look at how pregnant women are treated compared to those requesting other accommodations across their organization. "We're just telling people to take a look at any policy that might affect pregnant employees," Sally Barron, of counsel at Fisher & Phillips, told CorpCounsel.com. "Although on their face they [policies] may look neutral, the court is telling us you can't just look at the face of it, you have to look at the effects." According to Tina Syring, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and a member of the firm's labor and employment law department, make sure supervisors communicate effectively with pregnant workers about requests and what can be done about them. "It's going to need to be an interactive process similar to what you'd need to do with an ADA accommodation," she said. As for Ms. Young, she will now have the opportunity to bring her case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Although her case is not over yet, her side sees the high court's decision as a victory. "This is a big win for Peggy Young and other women in the workplace," Ms. Young's attorney, Samuel Bagenstos, told The National Law Journal. VIA QUADRONNO: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angel D. Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Via Quadronno LLC d/b/a Via Quadronno, K.C. Long, and Paolo Egidio Della Pappa, Case No. 1:15-cv-02481 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant with a principal place of business at 25 East 73rd Street, New York, New York 10021. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com WBS INC: "Norwood" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Norwood, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. WBS, Inc., a Texas corporation, d/b/a W-B Supply Co., Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00622 (D. Colo., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. WBS, Inc. is an oilfield supply company operating numerous stores near oil plays in Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota and New Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian David Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES, THE LAW OFFICES OF 123 North College Avenue, #200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 212-4665 Facsimile: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com WHITTAKER CLARK: $1.6MM Cosmetic Talc Asbestos Verdict Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a $1.6 million New Jersey asbestos verdict involving cosmetic talc that is believed to be the first of its kind has been upheld on appeal. On March 27, a three-judge panel in Kaenzig v. Charles B. Chrystal Co. affirmed the award against South Plainfield-based talc supplier Whittaker Clark & Daniels. The company was the primary supplier of raw talc for a plant that produced Old Spice and Desert Flower talcum powder that was contaminated with asbestos, the court said in its opinion. Steven Kaenzig, 47, who was diagnosed with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma in 2011, claimed that during the first eight years of his life, from 1967 to 1975, he was exposed to asbestos carried home on the work clothes of his father, Wilfred Kaenzig, who worked at the Old Spice plant, owned by Shulton Inc., in Mays' Landing, according to the opinion. Wilfred Kaenzig's employment and Steven Kaenzig's claimed exposure came to an end in 1975, when Shulton relocated its talc manufacturing to Tennessee, the opinion said. The court pointed out that the move was "motivated by complaints from purchasers of some of Shulton's 'high-priced' products that its product containers were coated with talc dust." Whittaker Clark challenged the verdict on multiple grounds, including the admission or exclusion of certain evidence and the denial of its repeated motions, made during and after trial, for judgment in its favor. Appeals Judges Carmen Alvarez, Alexander Waugh Jr. and Harry Carroll found that the trial judge, Vincent LeBlon of Middlesex County Superior Court, decided those issues correctly and affirmed the $1.4 million in pain and suffering damages awarded to Steven Kaenzig, plus $200,000 for his wife's loss of consortium. It was undisputed that during the eight years in question, Whittaker Clark supplied 99 percent of the raw talc used at the Cape May plant and that Wilfred Kaenzig regularly worked with what the court described as "the injury-producing element (the contaminated friable dust) of that product." Wilfred Kaenzig testified that before leaving work, he would try to brush the talc dust off his hair and clothes but some always remained and that when he arrived home, he would pick up Steven Kaenzig and as he got older, play with him, before changing or showering, according to the opinion. Steven Kaenzig's mother said she laundered her husband's work clothes in close proximity to her son, providing another avenue of exposure. Steven Kaenzig, who lives in Hammonton, could not recall being exposed to asbestos after 1975, and denied being exposed at his job installing fiberglass insulation. By the time he began that job, the danger was known and asbestos was no longer used to insulate, and he worked only in residences, never removed insulation and would not install any in older homes until old asbestos insulation was taken out, he said, according to the opinion. He was diagnosed in October 2011 after months of severe abdominal pain. In 2012, Steven Kaenzig's abdominal lining, gallbladder and part of his colon were removed, along with tumors from throughout his chest cavity and pelvic area, including nodules from his diaphragm, liver, right testicular vessels, rectum and bladder, the opinion said. The surgery was followed by four months of chemotherapy during which he lost 40 pounds, was unable to eat solid food while experiencing nausea and liver abnormalities, the court said. Though he returned to work right after chemotherapy, he claimed he was not yet recovered. He said he went back because, as a sole proprietor, he needed the income, according to the opinion. Mr. Kaenzig sued other companies, including Shulton and its parent, American Cyanamid Co., now Wyeth Holdings Corp., but all were dismissed, leaving just Whittaker Clark at the October- November 2013 trial. On appeal, Whittaker Clark argued that testimony by Mr. Kaenzig and his wife about their lack of insurance and financial difficulty in paying his medical bills should have been excluded because it invited the jury to consider extraneous issues and reach a verdict based on sympathy for the plaintiffs. Since no objection was raised at trial, Whittaker Clark had to show plain error, a burden it did not meet, the appeals court said. Mr. Kaenzig's financial circumstances were relevant to explain why he returned to work so soon and without it, the jury might have inferred that he had fully recovered at that time, and "discounted his damages accordingly," the court said, noting that LeBlon instructed the jury that in awarding damages, "sympathy must play no role or part in your thinking." The difficulty obtaining coverage was likewise "relevant as to why Steven had not undergone any further treatment" and any prejudice resulting from the refusal to pay for the PET scan was cured by a cautionary instruction that it should be considered only for that purpose and not as "proof of the potential terminal nature of his illness or for the purposes of medical expenses," the appeals court said. Whittaker Clark also appealed based on LeBlon's refusal to compel the plaintiffs to run over test results on "vintage" samples of Old Spice, produced at the Cape May plant during the 1960s and mid-1970s, which a paralegal purchased on eBay from an unnamed seller. Plaintiffs expert Sean Fitzgerald, a geologist, tested the samples but was barred from testifying at trial about the results because a chain of custody could not be shown, according to the opinion. Whittaker Clark wanted the raw data and reports of another expert who tested the samples but who was retained for presuit review and consultation and not as a litigation expert. The "exceptional circumstances" required to order discovery of the opinions of an expert not expected to testify at trial were lacking because the samples remained available for testing and had been turned over and there was no evidence they were "mishandled, tampered with or altered," the appeals court said. In addition, Whittaker Clark could have done its own testing, but didn't, and it "failed to demonstrate why it could not procure its own 'vintage' samples for testing, just as plaintiffs did," the court said. The court rejected Whittaker Clark's argument that it was prejudiced by a reference by the plaintiffs' medical expert to a Shulton employee with mesothelioma. The appeals court said there was no reversible error because LeBlon gave a quick curative instruction, with no objection or motion to strike by defense counsel, "suggesting that counsel perceived no error in the instruction." The appeals court also found no prejudice given that defense counsel elicited testimony from Wilfred Kaenzig that he was aware of another mesothelioma case at the Shulton plant and commented on his testimony during closing argument. Moshe Maimon of Levy Konigsberg in New York, who, along with Leah Kagan, represents the Kaenzigs, said he was unaware of another asbestos verdict involving cosmetic-grade talc, adding that the "harm caused by asbestos-contaminated talc . . . has long been overshadowed by the industrial disease aspect of asbestos." Mr. Maimon said he has three other cosmetic talc cases in New Jersey, one involving a deceased Shulton employee and two by women who claim asbestos exposure from the use of Desert Flower and Cashmere Bouquet talcum powders, the latter of which was made by Colgate-Palmolive. Defense lawyer Richard Mirra -- rmirra@hoaglandlongo.com -- of Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas in New Brunswick, declined to comment on the appeals court's ruling. YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Carrasco and Juan Ovalle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, L.L.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-00145 (S.D. Tex., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours a week. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, L.L.C. is an oilfield services company providing a variety of services to the oilfield, including pressure control services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com YOUKU TUDOU: Faces "Martindale" Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Martindale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Youku Tudou Inc., Victor Wing Cheung Koo, and Michael Ge Xu, Case No. 2:15-cv-02246 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 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. Youku Tudou Inc. purports to operate as an Internet television company in the People's Republic of China. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com ZIJA INTERNATIONAL: Illegally Records Calls, "Irby" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Irby, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zija International, Inc. and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-02271 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose its intentional recording of telephone communications. Zija International, Inc. is a Utah corporation that owns and operates health and wellness network marketing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Reid, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com sferrell@trialnewport.com * DoL to Issue New Rules on "White-Collar" OT Pay Exemptions ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael V. Abcarian, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the Department of Labor is expected to issue new rules proposing changes to the "white-collar" overtime pay exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The new rules likely will open the door for millions of employees to receive overtime pay as a result of a significant raise in the minimum salary required for employers to classify them exempt. In January 2014, the Economic Policy Institute recommended the DOL raise overtime salary minimums to qualify for white collar exemptions by 53 percent to $970 per week ($50,440 annually) from the current minimum salary of $23,660 ($455 per week). Doing so is expected to affect five to ten million employees who will otherwise be converted to non-exempt status. While many don't typically think of salaried workers as qualifying for overtime pay, this has never been true, and the new rules will make this reality all the more important. For a salary to meet the FLSA's requirements, it must generally be a fixed and unvarying amount that is paid each work week, and not subject to reduction based upon content or quality of work (subject to a few authorized deductions that are specified in applicable regulations.) The new rules will undoubtedly result in greater expenses and possibly operational changes as employers struggle to deal with an increasing population of employees who must be provided overtime pay. When released, it is a virtual certainty that the proposed rules will impose a substantially higher minimum salary for valid application of the FLSA's administrative, executive, and professional exemptions. New requirements may also involve more stringent and detailed duties tests. If unprepared, employers may experience more than sticker shock when these changes take effect. One of the industries expected to take a hard hit is the retail industry, because it historically employs a substantial number of lower paid supervisors. As Texas ranks second for number of retail employees in the nation, our state is sure to feel the impact of the upcoming changes. Current Exemption Requirements Most employment law attorneys are familiar with current requirements employers must meet in order to qualify their employees as overtime pay exempt. However, with changes on the horizon, in-house counsel and employment attorneys should brush up on current law by visiting the DOL's website and reviewing fact sheet #17 A, "Exemption for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act." Potential Outcomes The extent to which these changes may impact our economy as a whole will not be known until the DOL's final rules are implemented, and the effects of massive employee reclassifications (by choice or law) work their way through the system. For many employers, these changes could affect their very ability to remain in business. Let's consider the following scenario involving the administrative exemption as but one of a myriad of practical problems that could arise from the single act of more than doubling the required minimum salary for an employee to be classified as overtime exempt. As background, remember that historically many employees classified as administrative exempt have not actually qualified for exemption (according to the DOL) because they do not regularly and primarily exercise discretion and independent judgment in matters of significance. Under current DOL rules, the "matters of the significance" test is typified by administrative employees performing tasks such as: formulating, interpreting or implementing management or operational policies; committing the employer in significant financial matters; waiving or deviating from established employer policies and procedures without need for higher-level approval; involvement in long-range business planning; investigation and resolution of workplace matters of significance; and/or handling employee complaints, arbitrating workplace grievances, or resolving workplace disputes. Simply exercising skill in applying employers' well-established techniques, procedures, or standards does not currently qualify employees for administrative exemption. As you might expect, the interpretation of these requirements has led to many disputes between employers and the DOL regarding the question of whether (and which) employees should be considered administratively exempt from the overtime pay requirement under current rules. Usually, however, salary has not been at the core of those disputes, because the current dollar floor is relatively low. Now, add to the mix the fact that today's bona fide, administratively exempt employees may in the near future become non-exempt simply because they do not earn at least $970 per week. Employers' conundrum in this calculus is simple, yet profound. Employers could increase their direct labor costs by giving all affected administrative employees a sufficient pay raise (not likely, unless salaries are currently close to the new minimum). Or, they could reduce the number of administrative employees to contain costs while ensuring the payment of compliant salaries to those administrative employees they retain and hire in the future. But what if employers need to retain all of their current administrative employees, but simply can't afford them under the new requirement? They could assess the cost of overtime pay against the cost of increased guaranteed salaries, and decide which is less expensive. Or, employers could consider raising the price of goods and services to offset increased direct labor costs. But what if their customers won't pay those prices because they can procure needed goods and services elsewhere at better prices? While these hypotheticals are overly simplistic, they illustrate fundamental problems that will ripple throughout the economy as the new white collar exemption rules are implemented. Because such a significant change in the minimum salary requirement is likely to be implemented at a single point in time, rather than through a gradual increase, it will undoubtedly cause some employers to experience massive heartburn, while others may have no choice but to go out of business or substantially reorganize in order to remain operationally viable and compliant with the law. The processes through which the proposed rules must go through before taking effect will take time, and in reality, will not likely be complete until this fall, at the earliest. Despite the fact that these profound changes will not warrant immediate compliance, employers and their legal counsel should begin preparing for imminent and significant change to the employment landscape. In the time leading up to mandated action, they should begin auditing current practices and projecting how likely changes to the white collar exemption rules will affect their companies' bottom lines. Failure to take proactive steps now may leave employers with momentous obstacles when the final rules become law. * Malpractice Plaintiffs Can Get New Experts, Supreme Court Rules ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that a plaintiff in a malpractice case faced with a challenge to his expert affidavit can fix the problem by finding a new expert, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled on March 27. The unanimous ruling affirmed a Court of Appeals panel that had disagreed with a Fulton County judge. Lawyers for doctors being sued in the case had contended that allowing a plaintiff to file an affidavit by a new expert would undermine the requirement that a malpractice lawsuit be accompanied by an expert affidavit. But the March 27 decision by Presiding Justice P. Harris Hines said allowing a new expert did not conflict with the rule's purpose of deterring the filing of frivolous malpractice lawsuits. It's unclear how many cases the decision will affect. But lawyers uninvolved with the case were watching it: the Georgia Defense Lawyers Association and Georgia Trial Lawyers Association each filed an amicus brief. A Georgia statute says a professional malpractice complaint must be accompanied by an affidavit from an expert witness backing up the plaintiff's claim. That law says a defendant may move to dismiss the case on the basis that the affidavit is defective in some way, but the statute also says "the plaintiff may cure the alleged defect by amendment" within 30 days of being served by the motion, thereby avoiding dismissal. Although the statute has been on the books since the 1980s, it took on greater importance after the 2005 state tort law overhaul tightened requirements for expert qualifications. In the case decided by the high court, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered serious complications and permanent problems as a result of a back surgery. He said the two neurosurgeons he sued were negligent in giving the wrong diagnosis and performing unnecessary and suboptimal surgical procedures. The defendants challenged an affidavit the plaintiff filed with his initial complaint, saying the doctor who gave the affidavit wasn't competent to testify concerning the neurological care at issue. Rather than argue why his original expert affidavit was sufficient, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, accompanied by an affidavit of a different expert. But the defense contended that the affidavit of a new expert wasn't a permissible way to cure the problem with the first affidavit. Fulton Superior Court Judge Kimberly Esmond Adams agreed with the defense that the plaintiff could not file the affidavit of a new expert, and she dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed, and a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals -- Chief Judge Herbert Phipps and Judges John Ellington and Elizabeth Branch -- reinstated his lawsuit, saying plaintiffs should be given latitude to correct an allegedly deficient affidavit. (Branch indicated she didn't agree with everything Ellington said in his opinion.) In the March 27 opinion by Justice Hines, the justices concluded that the Court of Appeals panel was correct. Nothing in the statutes at issue says that the only permissible amendment to an expert affidavit is one that uses the same expert whose affidavit originally accompanied the complaint. Justice Hines added that because the expert affidavit requirement is an exception to the state's generally lenient rules for bringing a lawsuit, it must be interpreted in a manner consistent with that general rule, as long as that interpretation doesn't detract from the affidavit requirement's purpose, which is to reduce the filing of frivolous malpractice suits. "Nothing in our reading of the statute detracts from that purpose," wrote Justice Hines. "[The plaintiff] has exercised his right to amend his complaint as a matter of course under O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-11-15(a), and produced an affidavit of an expert who opines that professional malpractice occurred." J. Paul Mitchell -- PMitchell@weathingtonsmith.com -- of Weathington Smith in Atlanta, who represents the doctors in the case, said the impact of the decision may be narrow, because usually if a plaintiff's expert's affidavit is challenged, the plaintiff comes back with an amended affidavit by the same expert. "We feel that it's an important decision," said Mr. Mitchell. "But at the same time we think that the real-world application will be somewhat limited, because it doesn't change the qualifications that an expert must meet. That remains the same, so at most it gives plaintiffs 30 additional days after an expert is challenged to find a new one." Atlanta lawyer Stacey Carroll, who won the appeal along with Douglas Davis of Belli, Weil, Grozbean & Davis in Atlanta, said via email that two plaintiffs lawyers had called him recently about his case because they are fighting similar motions to dismiss. "These plaintiffs now have a backstop by bringing in an additional expert rather than going 'all in' on the initial expert's qualifications," said Ms. Carroll He said defendants now will be less inclined to file a motion to dismiss a meritorious case based on a challenge to the expert's competency, knowing the plaintiff can file an affidavit from a new or additional expert if any question arises about the original expert's qualifications. "The court has confirmed that Georgia's expert affidavit requirement is a threshold procedural hurdle -- not a technical trap to be exploited for the dismissal of meritorious cases," said Carroll. The case is Gala v. Fisher, No. S14G0919. * Third-Party Litigation Funding Fuels Canadian Class Suit Abuse ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sue Reisinger, writing for Law.com, reports that the growth of third-party litigation funding is helping to fuel class action lawsuit abuse in Canada, according to Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, which has released a new three-year study of Canadian class action suits. The report, "Painting an Unsettling Landscape: Canadian Class Actions 2011-2014," is not good news for general counsel up north. In Canada, there is an "increasingly favorable atmosphere for class actions," it states. It specifically cites the increased use of third-party litigation funding and Canada's "low standards" for nationwide class certification as key problems for defendant companies. In a March 23 statement, ILR's Ms. Rickard called third-party funding "a sophisticated scheme for gambling on litigation that rewards those who invest in the lawsuits, or the gamblers, at the expense of the class members themselves." A press release from the ILR added that third-party funding "remains a barrier to a fair civil justice system, in part because it threatens to undermine the check on frivolous lawsuits imposed by various 'loser pays' cost regimes in various Canadian provinces." The statement warns, "Given the Canadian Supreme Court's embrace of lax certification standards, Canadian plaintiffs' attorneys may begin exploiting liberal discovery rules in the United States in the hopes of mounting parallel class action litigation in Canadian provinces." The "rising tide" of class actions in Canada has been most visible in suits against companies involved in pharmaceuticals, medical devices, toxic torts, antitrust and securities fraud, according to the report. In its own statement, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce called on the country's judicial system to be "more rigorous and transparent" when considering an application to form a class. "Almost all cases are settled when the class is certified by the court," said Warren Everson, the Canadian Chamber's senior vice president for policy. So "the decision to certify is sometimes a guarantee the plaintiffs will win something," Everson explained. "That's not a very fair situation and not what we expect from the courts." Both Chamber groups noted that the Law Commission of Ontario is reviewing the class action process and could decide to limit any "abusive behavior." And they urged companies, industry organizations and insurers that have been -- or may become -- defendants in class actions to provide comments to the commission. Pointing to the United States, Mr. Everson said, "Our neighbors south of the border provide a clear example of a class action regime that is in serious trouble." His words were confirmed by a recent Carlton Fields Jorden Burt class action survey that found in the past three years the number of "bet the company" class actions in the U.S. has more than tripled, from 4.5 percent to 16.4 percent. Mr. Everson warned that now Canada is "headed down the same road, and it's critical that we raise the alarm on this issue. Let's not follow in their footsteps." ********* 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 * * *