/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150421.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 79
Headlines
1165 BROADWAY: "Sosa-Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
1ST RATE ENERGY: "Price" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AARON'S INC: Faces "Percy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AB GREEN: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
AMARILLO PLASTIC: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AMAZON.COM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
AMAZON.COM: Sued for Allegedly Docking Warehouse Workers' Wages
AMERIGAS PROPANE: "Shields" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Candesartan, Pregabalin & Verap SR
APPLE INC: Antitrust Cooperation Declines, Court Monitor Says
AVERUS INC: D. Colo. Judge Narrows Bid for Class Certification
AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Class Certification
BANK OF AMERICA: N.D. Cal. Judge Granted Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend
BFC REALTY: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BIG IRON: "Strickland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BLOOMINGDALES INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BMW AG: Recalls Mutiple Mini Cooper Models Due to Safety Hazard
BMW AG: Settles FTC Charges Over Voided Mini Warranties
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Pa. Court Has Jurisdiction Over Mesh Cases
CAREER HORIZONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Robinson" Suit Says
CHEMICAL & MINING: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York
COMPUTERIZED MUDLOGGING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
COOKIE PANACHE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
COOPER VISION: Faces "Gaston" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Neforos' Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Lens Retail Price
COOPER VISION: Faces "Leeds" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Chicken Salad Due to Listeria
D2HM INVESTMENTS: "Poblete" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DIRECTV LLC: Faces Class Action Over Connecticut Satellite Tax
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Tosses "No-Poach" Suits
DUOYUAN PRINTING: June 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EAST COAST: Recalls Beef Jerky Products Due Undeclared Allergens
EAST DUMPLING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Chen" Suit Says
ECOTALITY INC: DOE Letter at Issue in Securities Class Action
EDUCATION TRAINING: "Momen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EMULEX CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
EXXON MOBIL: Attorney Defends $225MM Pollution Settlement
FARMERS INSURANCE: D. Nev. Judge Won't Grant Class Certification
FCA US: Faces "Besley" Suit Over Misleading Truck Engine Info
FREDDIE MAC: 3 Former top Executives Settle SEC Disclosures Suit
FRESENIUS USA: "Casidsid" Stays in C.D. Cal. District Court
GAMESTOP INC: Court Approves Class Settlement in "Lusby" Suit
GAP INC: Can't Force Outlet Shoppers to Arbitrate Class Action
GENERAL MILLS: D. Minn. Judge Certified Class in "Ebert" Case
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Sued Over Credit Card Payment Policies
GRAND PARKWAY: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GREAT ALASKAN: Faces "Mears" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GULFSTREAM PARK: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GULLUOGLU LLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Cal. Judge Ruled on Defendant's Bid to Dismiss
HAR MASPETH: "Chin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HERITAGE PARTNERS: Judge Grants Defendants' Bid to Dismiss Suit
HOFFMANN LA ROCHE: Accutane Liability Suits Face Dismissal
HOOTERS OF HIGHWAY: "Ritchey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HORIZON BLUE: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
HUSCO INTERNATIONAL: Wis. Court Reversed Ruling in CBA Dispute
ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Prisoner Sexual Abuse
INFINITE CARE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
JACOBS TRADING: Recalls Actinolite Collectable Mineral Samplers
JP MORGAN: Faces "Fried" Suit Over Illegal Collection of PMI Fees
KALMAR: Recalls 2014 & 2015 Ottawa Models Due to Safety Hazard
KNIGHT INDUSTRIES: 3rd Circuit Reinstates Defective Design Claim
KOODO SUSHI: Faces "Gamero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LAWN WIZARD: Faces "Wigley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LENOX ROOM: Facea "Guapi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LES HERBES: Recalls W.-W. Due to Safety Risk
LEVY WORLD: Faces "Bekhalfi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LILYDALE: Recalls Oven Roasted Carved Chicken & Turkey Breast
LITTON LOAN: "Perryman" Case Dismissed With Leave to Amend
LIVE NATION: D.N.J. Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Forst" Suit
LUCKY DRAGON: "Arifatmi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Strudgeon" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Hall" Suit in Cal. Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Raygoza" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATOR: Customers Request Formaldehyde Kits Amid Suits
MARCELLO TREBITSCH: Faces Fraud Charges Over $7MM Ponzi Scheme
MASTEC INC: Faces "Cordero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MASTER KITCHEN: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MATO RESTAURANT: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MESE FISH: Faces "Leger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MINORITY MOBILE: "Bui" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MJM RESTAURANT: Faces "Wyler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NATIONAL RECOVERIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
NATIVE OILFIELD: Faces "Ahoyt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NATURE'S ARTIFACTS: Recalls Chrysotile Stones Due to Asbestos
NEGRIL VILLAGE: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NEW JERSEY: Supreme Court to Hear Pension Fund Ruling Appeal
NISSAN NORTH: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Altima Floorboards
NOVARTIS CORP: Faces Contact Lens Price-Fixing Class Action
NVIDIA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Graphics Processing Unit
PERMIAN EQUIPMENT: Faces "Posey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PHARMACARE US: Falsely Marketed Drug Products, Action Claims
PMR PROGRESSIVE: Illegally Recover Telephone Calls, Suit Says
POTAMITISA CORP: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Powers" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Purcell" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Webb" Suit in Wash. Over Alleged Data Breach
PREMIER DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Pay Employee Overtime, Suit Says
QUALITY EGG: Execs Get Jail Sentences for Salmonella Outbreak Role
QUORN FOODS: Faces Suits in Connecticut Over Product Packaging
RALEY'S FAMILY: Pregnant Workers File Discrimination Class Action
RED BULL: Falsely Marketed Energy Drink Products, Action Claims
RJ REYNOLDS: Tobacco Firms Sue FDA Over Labeling Guidelines
RJ REYNOLDS: Gets Big Win in Recent Engle Progeny Ruling
SANCHELIMA AND ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SEA WORLD: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Captive Orcas
SNACK FACTORY: Falsely Marketed Pretzel Products, Action Claims
SOBEYS INC: Recalls In-store Prepared Salads Due to Listeria
SOFIA FABULOUS: "Ibanez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SONUS NETWORKS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
TAKATA CORP: Auto Recyclers Association Files Airbag Class Action
TAYLOR ENERGY: Secrecy Shrouds Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
THIERRY OLLIVIER: Falsely Marketed Goji Berry Products, Suit Says
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action in California
TRIPLE S: Sued in D.P.R. Over Alleged Illegal Market Allocation
TT CO: Recalls Premium Flavored Ice Cream Powders Due to Milk
UNITED STATES: Court Permits Discovery; Rejects IRS Bid to Seal
UNITED STATES: Award of Attorneys' Fees Reduced by DC Court
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Settles Class Action Over Digital Royalties
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims
VIACOM INC: Defends $7.2MM Intern Class Action Settlement
VIBRATION MONITORING: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Redline Labeling Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Luster" Suit Claims
WESTERN RESERVE: "White" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WINE GROUP: Burg Simpson Files Class Action Over Arsenic in Wines
YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Action Claims
YORKVILLE ADVISORS: Wins $22,000 Attorneys' Fees in SEC Suit
ZILLOW INC: Judge Tosses $5-Million Overtime Class Action
*********
1165 BROADWAY: "Sosa-Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Sosa-Garcia, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated v. 1165 Broadway Food Corp., Joselo Peralta,
Jose Luis and Franklin [Last Name Unknown], Case No. 1:15-cv-
01923-ENV-RLM (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2015), seeks to recover to
recover unpaid minimum wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.
The Defendants own and operate Trade Wise Supermarket located at
1165 Broadway, Brooklyn, New York 11221.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
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: anne@leelitigation.com
cklee@leelitigation.com
1ST RATE ENERGY: "Price" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Price, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 1st Rate Energy Services, Inc. and Tandem
Professional Employer Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00745 (D.
Colo., April 9, 2015), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a Canadian based oilfield service
company that provides completion and production testing services
across the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
1150 Bissonnet
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
AARON'S INC: Faces "Percy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Percy, Robert Roy, and Stephen Morgan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aaron's, Inc., John Doe
1-10, and ABC Inc. 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01767 (E.D. Pa., April
6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of consumer electronics,
computers, residential furniture, household appliances and
accessories.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
155 2nd Street, Suite 4
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Telephone: (201) 630-0000
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
AB GREEN: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Cardenas and Amauris Diaz, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. AB Green Gansevoort, LLC, AB Green
Gansevoort Ii Corp., Hotelsab Gansevoort Employees, LLC, Andre
Balazs, Ian Nicholson, and Julie Park, Case No. 1:15-cv-02656
(S.D.N.Y., April 6, 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 hotel and restaurant in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
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: anne@leelitigation.com
cklee@leelitigation.com
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights law firm, on
March 19 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. securities
between March 7, 2014 and February 17, 2015, inclusive. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Accelerate Diagnostics
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Accelerate Diagnostics class action, go to the website
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-546.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
According to the lawsuit, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed
to disclose to investors that Accelerate Diagnostics' main product
the ID/AST system, formally known as the BACcel system, requires a
positive blood culture to diagnose pathogens in a blood sample.
When the truth was revealed to investors, the price of Accelerate
Diagnostics securities fell, damaging investors.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
May 18, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-546.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
AMARILLO PLASTIC: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Mason, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Amarillo Plastic Fabricators and Richard B. Rigowski,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00109 (N.D. Tex., April 3, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a furniture shop located at 305 S.
Jefferson, Amarillo, Texas 79101.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip R. Russ, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PHILIP R. RUSS
2700 S Western, Suite 1200
Amarillo, TX 79109
Telephone: (806) 358-9293
Facsimile: (806) 358-9296
E-mail: philiprruss@russlawfirm.com
- and -
Jerry Dan McLaughlin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JERRY DAN MCLAUGHLIN
2700 S. Western, Suite 1000
Amarillo, TX 79109
Telephone: (806) 371-9110
Facsimile: (806) 373-9029
E-mail: jmclaw@suddenlinkmail.com
AMAZON.COM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Amazon.Com, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00542 (W.D.
Wash., April 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by using
consumer reports to make adverse employment decisions without,
beforehand, providing the person who is the subject of the report
sufficient and timely notification.
Amazon.Com, Inc. owns and operates an electronic commerce company
with headquarters in Seattle, Washington.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher E. Green, Esq.
GREENLAWFIRM PS
601 Union Street, Suite 4285
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 686-4558
E-mail: chris@myfaircredit.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
Land Title Building, 19th Floor
100 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
AMAZON.COM: Sued for Allegedly Docking Warehouse Workers' Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that for
warehouse workers at Amazon.com, plaintiffs lawyers say the
punishment for arriving late to work far exceeded the crime.
A suit filed on April 6 on behalf of a potential class of
California laborers claims Amazon illegally docked workers' wages
and vacation time if they showed up more than three minutes late
to a shift.
A late clock-in at the start of the workday or after a meal break
bought workers a 30-minute deduction from their vacation time, or
if they had no vacation time accrued, the company sliced their
wages. Plaintiffs say the 30-minute blocks were nonnegotiable,
even if the employee worked 26 of those 30 minutes. That practice
amounts to "wage theft," according to the complaint filed Monday
in San Francisco Superior Court.
Plaintiffs are represented by lawyers with The Markham Law Firm
and Cohelan Khoury & Singer in San Diego, and United Employees Law
Group in Huntington Beach. Named plaintiff Eric Chavez made about
$13.75 per hour preparing Amazon.com customers' orders to ship,
according to the suit.
"For legally mandated 30-minute break periods, Chavez and others
usually took shorter break periods in order to avoid both a write-
up and a time penalty," the plaintiffs lawyers wrote.
Amazon.com representatives did not immediately respond to emails
seeking comment.
The plaintiffs lawyers claim the penalty was imposed even if
delays were unavoidable or if workers were late because they were
performing other tasks mandated by their supervisors.
Workers also earned "points" each time they were late, according
to the lawyers, and when enough points were accumulated, the
workers were automatically fired.
"This practice, given certain requirements imposed by the
employers, is questionable," the lawyers wrote, "but not
challenged by this lawsuit."
AMERIGAS PROPANE: "Shields" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Shields, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Amerigas Propane, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00754 (E.D. Cal., April 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Amerigas Propane, Inc. owns and operates a propane company that
maintains offices and conducts business in Nevada County,
California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew John Matern, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
APOTEX INC: Recalls APO-Candesartan, Pregabalin & Verap SR
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 10, 2015
Posting date: April 11, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II and III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-52887
A. APO-Candesartan 16 mg (Type-II)
B. APO-Pregabalin 50 mg (Type-II)
C. APO-Pregabalin 75 mg (Type-II)
D. APO-Verap SR 240 mg (Type-III)
Out of specification results during stability testing for CAD-II
impurity (APO-Candesartan), unidentified impurity (APO-Pregabalin)
and dissolution test (APO-Verap SR)
Affected products:
A. APO-Candesartan 16 mg (Type-II)
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02365367
Dosage form: Tablets
Strength: Candesartan cilexetil 16 mg
Lot or serial number: KV5559, KV5562, KW0448, KV5560, KV5561
Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc.
150 Signet Drive
Toronto
M9L 1T9
Ontario
CANADA
Marketing Authorization: Holder Apotex Inc.
150 Signet Drive
Toronto
M9L 1T9
Ontario
CANADA
B. APO-Pregabalin 50 mg (Type-II)
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02394243
Dosage form: Capsules
Strength: Pregabaline 50 mg
Lot or serial number: KW3889
Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc.
150 Signet Drive
Toronto
M9L 1T9
Ontario
CANADA
Marketing Authorization: Holder Apotex Inc.
150 Signet Drive
Toronto
M9L 1T9
Ontario
CANADA
C. APO-Pregabalin 75 mg (Type-II)
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02394251
Dosage form: Capsules
Strength: Pregabaline 75 mg
Lot or serial number: KN9046
Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc.
150 Signet Drive
Toronto
M9L 1T9
Ontario
CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc.
150 Signet Drive
Toronto
M9L 1T9
Ontario
CANADA
D. APO-Verap SR 240 mg (Type-III)
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02246895
Dosage form: Tablet (Extended-Release)
Strength: Verapamil hydrochloride 240 mg
Lot or serial number: KL7884
KL7885
Recalling Firm: Apotex Inc.
150 Signet Drive
Toronto
M9L 1T9
Ontario
CANADA
Marketing Authorization: Holder Apotex Inc.
150 Signet Drive
Toronto
M9L 1T9
Ontario
CANADA
APPLE INC: Antitrust Cooperation Declines, Court Monitor Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a court-appointed monitor says
Apple Inc.'s cooperation with efforts in a New York federal case
to improve its compliance with antitrust laws took on an
"adversarial tone" recently.
The monitor, Michael Bromwich, says in a report made public on
April 16 that Apple's cooperation with the monitoring team
"sharply declined" this year.
Mr. Bromwich was appointed to review the Cupertino, California
company's antitrust compliance policies and training after a judge
concluded Apple violated antitrust laws when it entered the
electronic book market in 2010. In December, the technology giant
got some sympathy from federal appeals judges deciding whether to
reverse the judge's antitrust finding that Apple colluded with e-
book publishers to raise prices and bust Amazon.com's control of
the market.
AVERUS INC: D. Colo. Judge Narrows Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christine M. Arguello of the District of Colorado
granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to certify
class in the case ALFONSO AVENDANO, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVERUS, INC., and MICHAEL
SHANK, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-01614-CMA-MJW (D. Colo.)
Averus, Inc. provides kitchen exhaust cleaning services as well as
fire protection maintenance services to restaurants, bars, and
hotels. Averus' corporate office is located in Gurnee, IL, and the
company has six branch offices in five states.
Plaintiff, Alfonso Avendano, was a non-exempt hourly employee and
worked as a lead service technician for the Denver branch of
Averus. Avendano was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid
$10.00 an hour on an hourly basis. He was directly supervised by
Michael Shank, the Branch Manager of Averus' Denver location.
Plaintiff filed an action in June 2014, alleging that Averus
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act because plaintiff and
similarly situated employees frequently worked more than 40 hours
a week, but were not paid for all of the hours they worked and
were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.
Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class under the FLSA, pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. 216(b); Equitably Toll the FLSA Statute of
Limitations; and Approve Notice.
Judge Arguello declines to equitably toll the statute of
limitations as to the Denver class but granted plaintiff's motion
in part and conditionally certifies the Denver class and ordered
the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint proposed notice
as to the Denver class.
A copy of Judge Arguello's order dated March 31, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/MMUHzPfrom Leagle.com
Alfonso Avendano, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by:
Edward Frank Siegel, Esq.
Alexander Neville Hood, Esq.
Towards Justice
1535 High Street, Third Floor
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: 720-441-2236
Facsimile: 303-957-2289
Defendants, represented by Brendan Daniel Benson --
bbenson@mcpclaw.com -- Amy L. Miletich -- amiletich@mcpclaw.com --
at MiletichCohen, PC; Antonio Caldarone --
acaldarone@lanermuchin.com -- at Laner Muchin, Ltd.
AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice James A. McIntyre of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's order in
the appealed case entitled GELASIO SALAZAR et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants and
Respondents, NO. D065148 (Cal. Ct. App.)
Plaintiffs Gelasio Salazar and Saad Shammas were employed by Avis
Budget Group, Inc. as mechanic's helpers. In November 2006, they
filed a class action complaint against Avis for alleged meal
period and other labor violations. Avis removed plaintiffs'
complaint to federal court. Plaintiffs later moved to certify a
state-wide class of auto mechanics who had performed work for Avis
since November 2002. The federal court denied class certification,
finding individual issues predominated. The federal court remanded
the case.
In August 2013, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification in the superior court. Plaintiffs requested
certification of a class of "all Auto Mechanics who have worked
for Avis for a period of more than six hours on one or more days
on and after November 27, 2002 until December 31, 2011."
Avis opposed the class certification motion, arguing that
individual issues would predominate. Avis asserted some but not
all of the defendant entities employed auto mechanics throughout
California. The trial court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification concluding that plaintiffs had failed to
establish the existence of predominant common questions of law or
fact.
Plaintiffs appealed contending that the trial court (1) relied on
improper criteria to deny class certification, and (2) failed to
properly consider their theory of the case and instead improperly
examined the merits of their claims.
Justice McIntyre affirmed the trial court's order denying class
certification.
A copy of Justice McIntyre's unpublished opinion dated February
27, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/EqLq52from Leagle.com
Harvey C. Berger -- berger@popeberger.com -- Timothy G. Williams
-- at Pope, Berger, Williams & Reynolds; Patrick L. Hosey --
hosey@hbattorneys.com -- at Hosey & Bahrambeygui; Jon R. Williams
-- at Boudreau Williams, for Plaintiffs and Appellants
Theodore R. Scott -- tscott@littler.com -- Jody A. Landry --
jlandry@littler.com -- Jerrilyn T. Malana -- jmalana@littler.com
-- at Littler Mendelson, for Defendants and Respondents
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One,
panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Gilbert Nares and
Justices James A. McIntyre and Judith L. Haller.
BANK OF AMERICA: N.D. Cal. Judge Granted Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Luck H. Koh of the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case
MICHELLE NARANJO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02748-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
The plaintiffs Michelle Naranjo and Mathan Jayme are former
employees of the defendant Bank of America National Association,
and were employed in San Jose, California. Plaintiffs filed a
complaint in California Superior Court for the County of Santa
Clara and alleged that upon their termination, defendant paid
plaintiffs with cashier's checks, but failed to provide plaintiffs
with pay statements as required by California law. Plaintiffs
also alleged that defendant failed to pay plaintiffs for time
worked during plaintiffs' final pay periods.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant's failure to provide them with
pay statements upon termination, and failure to pay them for time
worked during their final pay periods, violated California Labor
Code Sections 201, 203, and 226. Plaintiffs seek damages under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") on behalf of
themselves and other current and former employees of defendant
affected by the labor law violations.
Defendant removed the lawsuit to U.S. District Court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction and filed a motion to dismiss. Defendant
moved to dismiss and strike plaintiffs' PAGA claim, on the grounds
that plaintiffs improperly sought to represent absent aggrieved
current and former employees of defendant. Defendant argued that,
unless plaintiffs alleged that they could meet the requirements of
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
with respect to plaintiffs' representative PAGA claim, plaintiffs
could not seek PAGA penalties on behalf of other aggrieved
employees. Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend and ask for leave of
court to file a first amended complaint.
Judge Koh granted plaintiffs' motion to amend with the conditions
that plaintiffs amend the putative class period to commence one
year prior to the date of the filing of the first amended
complaint and plaintiffs define the term "Aggrieved Employees" in
plaintiffs' PAGA claim. Should plaintiffs choose to file an
amended complaint, plaintiffs must do so within 7 days.
Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice.
A copy of Judge Koh's order dated February 27, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/6lh64X from Leagle.com
Michelle Naranjo and Mathan Jayme, Plaintiffs, represented by
William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- at Polaris Law
Group, LLP; Dennis Sangwon Hyun -- info@hyunlegal.com -- at Hyun
Legal; Larry W Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- at Diversity Law
Group, P.C.
Bank of America National Association, Defendant, represented by
John Arthur Van Hook -- vanhook@mcguirewoods.com -- Truc T Nguyen
-- Michael David Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuire
Woods LLP
BFC REALTY: Sued in E.D. Mich. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Does 1-5 v. Lahkman Younis Al-Hakim, Josephine Marie
Mistretta, Kino Kareem Gardner, Joseph Masoad Sesi, Jaffrey Sesi,
Brandon Gilliam, and BFC Realty, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-11307 (E.D.
Mich., April 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in
Michigan.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deborah L. Gordon, Esq.
Sarah S. Prescott, Esq.
Nicholas M. Saleh, Esq.
DEBORAH GORDON LAW
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 258-2500
E-mail: dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com
sprescott@deborahgordonlaw.com
nsaleh@deborahgordonlaw.com
BIG IRON: "Strickland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Strickland and Shawn Turner, on behalf of themselves and
those who are similarly situated v. Big Iron Environmental Inc.,
James O'Brien and Kristy O'Brien, Case No. 3:15-cv-00158 (N.D.
Fla., April 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a recycle center with a principal
place of business at 41 Northwest Hollywood Boulevard, Fort Walton
Beach, Florida 32548.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Chase Branning, Esq.
Daniel Eugene Harrell, Esq.
CLARK PARTINGTON HART ETC
125 W Romana St, Ste 800
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 434-9200
Facsimile: (850) 432-7340
E-mail: jbranning@cphlaw.com
dharrell@cphlaw.com
BLOOMINGDALES INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Shamoura Welch-Robinson and Randy Davis, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated employees v. Bloomingdales, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01752 (E.D.N.Y., April 7, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Bloomingdales, Inc. is an Ohio corporation that owns and operates
a chain of department stores.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
1613 Northern Blvd.
Roslyn, NY 11578
Telephone: (516) 625-0105
Facsimile: (516) 625-0106
E-mail: lg@louisginsberglawoffices.com
BMW AG: Recalls Mutiple Mini Cooper Models Due to Safety Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 7865
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015147TC
ID number: 2015147
On certain vehicles, the front passenger seat occupant detection
mat can fatigue over time. As a result, the passenger airbag could
deactivate, illuminating the airbag warning lamp and the passenger
airbag ON/OFF lamp. Failure of the passenger airbag to deploy
during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the
risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers
will replace the occupant detection mat. Note: This recall is an
expansion of recalls 2008-307 and 2013-238.
Make Model Model year(s) affected
---- ----- ----------------------
MINI COOPER 2005, 2006
MINI COOPER S 2005, 2006
MINI COOPER CONVERTIBLE 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
MINI COOPER S CONVERTIBLE 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
BMW AG: Settles FTC Charges Over Voided Mini Warranties
-------------------------------------------------------
Auto Spies reports that BMW AG on March 19 agreed to settle
charges from the Federal Trade Commission that its Mini division
violated the law by telling owners that the company would void
their warranty unless they used Mini dealers and parts to perform
repairs and maintenance.
The FTC said BMW violated a 1975 federal law that bars companies
from requiring that consumers -- in order to maintain their
warranties -- use specific brands of parts or specified service
centers -- unless the part or service is provided to the consumer
without charge.
"It's against the law for a dealer to refuse to honor a warranty
just because someone else did maintenance or repairs on the car,"
said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer
Protection. "As a result of this order, BMW will change its
practices and give MINI owners information about their rights."
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Pa. Court Has Jurisdiction Over Mesh Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in response to a venue challenge, a Philadelphia judge has ruled
the city's courts have jurisdiction over the defendants in the
pelvic-mesh mass tort.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold L. New,
coordinating judge of the court's Complex Litigation Center,
rejected the jurisdictional challenge of defendants Boston
Scientific and Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon. The
defendants had sought to remove the cases to federal court in West
Virginia.
"Upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, and plaintiffs' response thereto, it is
hereby ordered and decreed that the motion is denied," Judge New
said in an order.
Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter, liaison counsel to the
plaintiffs in the litigation, said Judge New's decision came after
several briefings, discovery on the matter and oral argument.
"We are pleased to move forward with the cases that are listed for
trial, a group of over 100 cases that are affected by this
ruling," Mr. Kline said. "While there's no opinion by Judge New,
our argument was that we had established general jurisdiction over
Johnson & Johnson and specific jurisdiction in Pennsylvania over
Ethicon and Boston Scientific."
Mr. Kline said the bulk of the 100-plus cases involved Johnson &
Johnson.
Kenneth Murphy -- Kenneth.Murphy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle &
Reath represents Johnson & Johnson and did not return a call
seeking comment. Boston Scientific's attorney, Joseph Blum --
jblum@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, also did not return a
call seeking comment.
As of press time, there were approximately 500 mesh case listings
in the Complex Litigation Center. According to a notice of
removal filed in February by Boston Scientific in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
allegations against Boston Scientific in Philadelphia court are
similar to thousands of cases against it across the country,
warranting an MDL.
"There are currently more than 15,000 cases pending against"
Boston Scientific in federal court, according to the notice.
Boston Scientific's attempt to transfer the cases came six months
after Secant Medical, the sole Pennsylvania-based defendant in the
pelvic-mesh mass tort, was dismissed from the litigation.
In August, Judge New found that Secant was immune from liability
as a biomaterials supplier under the Biomaterials Access Assurance
Act of 1998.
While the act protects suppliers of biomaterials from civil
liability, it does not protect manufacturers of biomaterial-based
devices. The plaintiffs argued Secant fit the definition of a
manufacturer of mesh products.
Judge New's ruling left Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon and Boston
Scientific as the remaining primary defendants in the mesh cases.
Prior to the dismissal of Secant, pelvic mesh filings were on the
rise. In August, there were 859 total filings, according to court
records. The mass tort saw the largest influx of cases in June,
with 375 filings. In July, 192 cases were filed.
Months later, the mesh litigation is still the third largest mass
tort behind Reglan, with 2,293 case filings, and Risperdal,
consisting of 1,310 filings.
Risperdal is an antipsychotic drug that several plaintiffs have
claimed causes gynecomastia, a condition in which males grow
breasts. The drug is also alleged to increase the risk of
pituitary tumors.
Two Risperdal cases have been tried in Philadelphia so far. The
first resulted in a $2.5 million verdict for the plaintiff. The
second case resulted in a defense verdict, despite the jury
finding Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals
negligent in failing to warn about the drug's potential side
effects.
The plaintiffs in the Reglan litigation claim the drug, prescribed
to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease, caused them to develop
an incurable neurological disorder called tardive dyskinesia.
Pelvic or transvaginal mesh is intended to treat urinary
incontinence in women by supporting prolapsed organs. The
plaintiffs allege the mesh erodes prematurely, causing injuries
including severe pain, sexual dysfunction and gynecological
problems.
According to Mr. Kline, the first series of mesh cases are
scheduled to go to trial in Philadelphia from November to May
2016.
CAREER HORIZONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Robinson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Career Horizons, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05222 (W.D.
Wash., April 8, 2015), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful
automated calling practices in the form of unauthorized calls to
cellular telephones.
Career Horizons, Inc. is a provider of calling technology and
services to third-party business throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cliff Cantor, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
627 208th Ave. SE
Sammamish, WA 98074
Telephone: (425) 868-7813
Facsimile: (425) 732-3752
E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com
CHEMICAL & MINING: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 19 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Chemical & Mining Co. of Chile Inc. and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
15-cv-02106, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased SQM securities between March 4, 2014 and
March 17, 2015, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased SQM securities during the
Class Period, you have until May 18, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.
SQM is engaged in the production and distribution of specialty
plant nutrients, iodine and its derivatives, lithium and its
derivatives, potassium chloride and potassium sulfate, industrial
chemicals, and other commodity fertilizers.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) money from SQM was channeled
illicitly to electoral campaigns for the Independent Democratic
Union ("UDI"), Chile's largest conservative party; (2) the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Chile's Attorney General announced on February 24, 2015 that he
would lead the investigation into the escalating bribery and tax
evasion scandal involving the financial firm Banco Penta ("Penta"
or the "Penta Group"), a corruption scandal which has embroiled
numerous politicians across the country's political spectrum.
According to charges later lodged against Carlos Alberto Delano
and Carlos Eugenio Lavin, the two Penta founders used fake expense
receipts from family members to lower their taxable income and
allegedly made illegal payments to parliamentary candidates and a
deputy minister.
On February 26, 2015, SQM issued the first of a series of
disclosures, which, for the first time, publicly linked the
Company to the ongoing UDI contribution scandal and ultimately
culminated in the termination of the Chief Executive Officer and
resignation of three SQM Board members. The Company disclosed in
a press release that, at the request of the Chairman of the Board
of SQM, an extraordinary Board meeting was held to analyze the
ongoing political scandal in and the Attorney General's
investigation. In such meeting, the Board resolved to establish a
special committee comprising of Board members Wolf Von Appen, Jose
Maria Eyzaguirre Baeza, and Juan Antonio Guzman Molinari.
On March 11, 2015, SQM disclosed that its Board of Directors would
meet the next day to evaluate the request by the Public Prosecutor
for delivery of certain information pertaining to the alleged
bribery scandal.
On March 16, 2015, the Company announced that it had turned over
all of the information requested by the Public Prosecutor in the
March 6, 2015 Letter to the Chilean Internal Revenue Service for
the last six years, which the Company purported was the proper
authority to review such information. Moreover, the Company also
announced that the Board had agreed to terminate CEO Patricio
Contesse effectively immediately. In the prior weeks, Contesse
had attempted to block the Company's decision to turn over the
documents.
As a result of these partial disclosures, SQM stock consistently
traded downward, from a closing price of $26.17 per share on
February 25, 2015, to close at $22.10 per share on March 17, 2015,
a decline of 15.55% on unusually heavy trading volume during that
period.
On March 18, 2015, SQM issued a press release indicating that the
three representatives on its Board from Canadian stakeholder
Potash Corporation, SQM Vice Chairman Wayne Brownlee, who also
serves as the Chief Financial Officer of Potash Corporation, and
directors Jose Maria Eyzaguirre and Alejandro Montero, had
resigned the prior day.
As a result of this news, shares of SQM fell an additional $3.45
per share, or more than 15.6%, on extremely heavy volume, to close
at $18.65 per share on March 18, 2015.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.
COMPUTERIZED MUDLOGGING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Dunne, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Computerized Mudlogging Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00692
(N.D. Ohio, April 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours a week.
Computerized Mudlogging Services, LLC is headquartered in New
Middletown, Ohio and is engaged in the business of providing
geosteering, mud logging, and well security services to the oil
and gas industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
Robert E. DeRose II, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ
10th Floor, 250 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
COOKIE PANACHE: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Octavio Jimenez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cookie Panache by Between The Bread, Ltd., BTB Events
& Celebrations, Inc., Ricky Eisen and Sean Martin, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02728 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a catering business in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
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: anne@leelitigation.com
cklee@leelitigation.com
COOPER VISION: Faces "Gaston" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Gaston, Matt Gustafson, Marlene Jacobus, and Rachel
Berg, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Abb/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC, Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch &
Lomb Inc., Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and Cooper Vision,
Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60743 (S.D. Fla., April 8, 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:
Curtis Miner, Esq.
Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
COLSON HICKS & EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Telephone: (305) 476-7400
Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
E-mail: curt@colson.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-3986
Facsimile: (215) 575-3894
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
COOPER VISION: Faces "Neforos' Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Neforos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Abb/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC, Alcon Laboratories,
Inc., Bausch & Lomb Inc., Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and
Cooper Vision, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00437-HES-JRK, 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:
Wallace Allen McDonald, Esq.
LACY, PRICE & WAGNER
249 N. peters Rd.
Knoxville, TN 37923
Telephone: (865) 246-0800
E-mail: amcdonald@lpwpc.com
COOPER VISION: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Lens Retail Price
------------------------------------------------------------
Diego Hernandez, Cregan Smith, and Morgan Devlin, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc.,
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., ABB Concise Optical Group,
LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01544 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 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:
Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT P.C.
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 756-7748
Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com
COOPER VISION: Faces "Leeds" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andee Leeds, 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.
1:15-cv-21316 (S.D. Fla., April 6, 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:
Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
John Gravante III, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
City National Bank Building
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: rjosesberg@podhurst.com
jgravante@podhurst.com
- and -
Douglas G. Thompson, Esq.
Michael G. McLellan, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
1077 30th Street NW, Suite 150
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 337-8000
Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com
mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Chicken Salad Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
Costco Wholesale Canada Inc. is recalling Kirkland Signature brand
roasted chicken salad from the marketplace due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled products described below.
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.
Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.
This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC
---------- ----------- ---- on product ---
----------
Kirkland Roasted Variable All Best Starts with
Signature chicken salad Before dates 2 47321
up to and
including 2015
AL 03
Kirkland Roasted Variable All Best Starts with
Signature chicken salad Before dates 2 47319
up to and
including 2015
AL 03
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xqjEZa
D2HM INVESTMENTS: "Poblete" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica D. Poblete, Didie Marcelin, and other similarly situated
individuals v. D2HM Investments, LLC, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-
60754-BB (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.
D2HM Investments, LLC is a Florida limited liability company that
is engaged in interstate commerce.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
Court House Tower
Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
agp@rgpattorneys.com
DIRECTV LLC: Faces Class Action Over Connecticut Satellite Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Emily Field, writing for Law360, report that
DirecTV LLC was hit on March 19 with a $5 million proposed class
action in Connecticut federal court, accusing it of committing
unfair and deceptive trade practices by making customers pay for a
5 percent state tax imposed on satellite-TV providers.
Instead of absorbing the Connecticut tax as a cost of doing
business, the satellite TV provider allegedly gains an unfair
competitive advantage by making its customers foot the bill.
DirecTV hides the surcharge in its price quotes and customers wind
up paying more than the company's advertised monthly prices, the
suit says.
DirecTV's customers in Connecticut can only determine the true
nature of the surcharge after they've already been roped into
long-term contracts -- which are costly to cancel -- and if they
carefully scrutinize their bills, according to the March 19
putative class action.
"By unfairly and deceptively hiding the true price of DirecTV's
goods and services to Connecticut residents, DirecTV has taken
steps to unfairly trick Connecticut customers into selecting
DirecTV services so that they become trapped into a deceptive and
onerous long-term contract," the suit claims.
The proposed class action came roughly a week after the Federal
Trade Commission accused DirecTV, the largest satellite television
services provider in the country, of deceptively advertising a
discounted 12-month programming package because it doesn't clearly
disclose that the package requires a two-year contract.
DirecTV has 20 million subscribers throughout the country, and its
allegedly deceptive marketing practices have sparked tens of
thousands of consumer complaints and actions by all 50 states and
the District of Columbia, according to the FTC's complaint.
Under state laws, DirecTV is obligated to pay a quarterly tax of 5
percent upon gross earnings from the transmission of video
programming by satellite to its Connecticut subscribers, the suit
says.
The class action was launched by Connecticut resident Jonathan
Ferrie, who allegedly bought satellite TV equipment and services
from DirecTV in July 2013. DirecTV's advertisements, promotions
and marketing materials led Mr. Ferrie to believe that no other
costs or charges would be associated with the goods, he claims.
Not only did Mr. Ferrie not know DirecTV would force him to pay
for a tax liability that Connecticut imposes directly on the
defendant, he was tricked into believing the surcharge was an
additional state tax, according to his suit.
When DirecTV's prospective customers try to determine the cost of
the company's goods and services through its website, the sample
bills don't include the surcharge, the proposed class action
claims. The sample bills even state, "This amount reflects the
total package and programming costs you can expect to see on your
first month's bill statement," according to the March 19 suit.
The defendant then allegedly hides the fact that it is imposing
the surcharge by itemizing it under the heading "taxes" on monthly
billing statements. Consequently, the company is allegedly trying
to make its customers think Connecticut has imposed the surcharge
on them, when in actuality DirecTV has done so.
Mr. Ferrie seeks to represent a class of thousands of Connecticut
residents who have bought the defendant's satellite TV goods or
services from March 19, 2012, to the present.
The proposed class action requests a permanent injunction blocking
DirecTV from the imposition of the surcharge and ordering the
satellite TV provider to conspicuously advertise that bills will
include the surcharge.
The requested injunction would also force DirecTV to allow
customers to withdraw from long-term contracts without
cancellation fees or costs, and order it to repay the costs and
expenses of installing DirecTV equipment to any customers who want
to withdraw from such contracts. It also seeks actual and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, prejudgment
interest, equitable relief, a declaration that DirecTV's conduct
constitutes unfair and/or deceptive trade practices and additional
relief.
Mr. Ferrie is represented by John R. Horvack Jr., David S. Hardy
and John L. Cordani Jr. of Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
LLP.
Counsel information for DirecTV wasn't immediately available.
The case is Jonathan Ferrie et al. v. DirecTV LLC, case number
3:15-cv-00409, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Tosses "No-Poach" Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge has tossed claims that nine California animation studios
conspired not to poach each other's employees, ruling on April 3
that plaintiffs lawyers waited too long to sue.
The lawyers failed to satisfy the four-year statute of limitations
on federal and state antitrust claims, according to U.S. District
Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California. She gave
the lawyers 30 days to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs attorneys with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro; and Susman Godfrey had accused the animation
studios of reaching agreements not to recruit each other's
employees, and using dinner and drink meetings to illegally set
caps on industry salaries. The suits, consolidated before
Judge Koh in November, target big name studios including
DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., Pixar and two Sony
affiliates.
The allegations echo the "no-poach" claims against major Silicon
Valley technology companies that have resulted in settlements of
more than $400 million. But this time plaintiffs lawyers may have
launched the litigation too late.
The statute of limitations began running when plaintiffs accepted
employment with the studios between 2004 and 2007, Judge Koh
wrote, concluding their window to sue would have closed by 2011.
To overcome the statute of limitations, plaintiffs lawyers argued
that employees of the studios were repeatedly injured by the
defendants' ongoing antitrust violations. The lawyers also
asserted that because the studios artificially lowered workers'
salaries, the employees suffered additional injury every time they
were paid.
Judge Koh called the argument a "novel theory," but ruled merely
paying an employee is not enough to constitute an overt violation
of antitrust law.
"Plaintiffs have not pled any facts showing that defendants
continued to engage in the wrongful conduct which would have
resulted in 'artificially depressed compensation' on or after
September 8, 2010," Judge Koh wrote, referencing the date four
years prior to plaintiffs' first complaint.
Judge Koh also shot down plaintiffs' lawyers argument that the
statute of limitations should be waived because defendants
fraudulently concealed their illegal actions. The lawyers claimed
the studios met secretly and "tried to minimize any written record
of the conspiracy." But Judge Koh, citing case law from the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ruled that wasn't enough.
"The fact that a defendant's acts are 'by nature self-concealing'
is insufficient to show that the defendant has affirmatively
misled the plaintiff as to the existence of the plaintiff's
claim," she wrote.
Covington & Burling represents Pixar, Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Co.
ImageMovers and Two Pic MC. McManis Faulkner and Williams &
Connolly represent Blue Sky Studios Inc. Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe represents Sony Pictures Animation Inc. and Sony
Pictures Imageworks Inc. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher represents
DreamWorks.
DUOYUAN PRINTING: June 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP on March 20 disclosed
that the United States District Court Southern District of New
York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class
action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of
Duoyuan Printing, Inc.:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED DUOYUAN
PRINTING, INC. ("DYP") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO
DYP'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION
WITH DYP'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING OF STOCK ON NOVEMBER 6, 2009;
OR (2) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED DYP COMMON STOCK FROM
NOVEMBER 6, 2009 TO MARCH 28, 2011, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York in the above-
captioned action, that a hearing will be held on June 16, 2015 at
9:45 a.m. in courtroom 11A before the Honorable George B. Daniels,
United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York,
500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement between
Plaintiffs and Defendants Piper Jaffray & Co. and Roth Capital
Partners, Inc. consisting of the sum of $1,893,750, should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the application for an
award of attorneys' fees of one third of the Settlement amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $30,000, and awards to
each Class Representative not to exceed $1,500 per representative
should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation as against
Settling Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired DYP common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to DYP's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with DYP's initial public offering of Stock
on November 6, 2009; or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired DYP
common stock from November 6, 2009 to March 28, 2011, both dates
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this
action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to DYP
Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 230, 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3,
Media, PA 19063, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net
If you are a member of the Class who did not submit a proof of
claim form in the Partial Settlement with Defendants DYP, Wenhua
Guo, Xiquing Diao, Christopher P. Holbert, Lianjun Cai, Punan Xie,
and William D. Suh dated June 28, 2013, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release to the Claims Administrator postmarked no
later than May 26, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. If you submitted a valid proof of claim in the June 28,
2013 Settlement, that proof of claim form will serve as your proof
of claim form in this Settlement and you are automatically
eligible for a recovery in this Settlement without needing to
submit another proof of claim form. Unless you submit a written
exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in
the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a Request for Exclusion
to the Claims Administrator in the manner detailed in the Notice,
and postmarked no later than May 26, 2015.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and awards to Class Representatives must
be received by the addresses indicated in the Notice and below by
no later than May 26, 2015.
COURT
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL
Jason S. Cowart
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Laurence M. Rosen
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Class Counsel for Plaintiffs
DEFENSE COUNSEL
Terri Combs
FAEGRE, BAKER, & DANIELS, LLP
801 Grand Avenue
33rd Floor
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Counsel for Settling Defendants
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiffs' Counsel identified above.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EAST COAST: Recalls Beef Jerky Products Due Undeclared Allergens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 10, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Fish, Allergen - Milk,
Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: East Coast Beef Jerky
Distribution: New Brunswick
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9750
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC
---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ ---
East Coast Beef Jerky 150 g All packages where None
Beef Jerky fish, milk, mustard
and wheat are not
declared on the label.
EAST DUMPLING: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Chen" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Jun Chen and Anai Cheng Mei Lin, all for themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zhangwei Wu d/b/a East
Dumpling LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00966 (D. Md., April 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.
East Dumpling LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at 12 N
Washington, St., Suite 14G, Rockville, MD 20850.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Thomas Valkenet, Esq.
YOUNG AND VALKENET
600 Wyndhurst Ave Ste 230
Baltimore, MD 21210
Telephone: (410) 323-0900
Facsimile: (410) 323-0977
E-mail: itv@youngandvalkenet.com
ECOTALITY INC: DOE Letter at Issue in Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that in June 2013
executives at struggling San Francisco-based Ecotality Inc.
huddled with a trio of investment funds to finalize the details of
a much needed $6.4 million cash influx.
Just days earlier, the company, a maker of cutting-edge electric
car charging stations, had delivered bad news to its most
important backer, the U.S. Department of Energy.
The company divulged that it couldn't meet deadlines to install
more than 13,000 charging stations, an ambitious project funded by
nearly $100 million in DOE grants. Within the week, the agency
fired off a letter demanding a new completion plan and threatening
to pull the grant. Yet the private-investment deal moved forward
without the company raising any alert.
That August, the government shut off funding and Ecotality's stock
price plummeted by 79 percent to 31 cents per share. In September,
the company filed for bankruptcy.
The implosion of Ecotality drew far less attention than the
bankruptcy two years earlier of Solyndra and few of the political
fireworks, but the company's private investors and their lawyers
at Lowenstein Sandler aren't walking away quietly. Their suit
demanding the return of the $6.4 million investment accuses
Ecotality's executives of hiding the extent of the company's
financial problems and just how shaky its government grant was
even as they courted new funding.
"It's not that often that you buy stock in a company and before
the ink is dry on the purchase contract the company is completely
up in smoke," said Lowenstein Sandler's Lawrence Rolnick --
lrolnick@lowenstein.com
Lawyers for company executives, led by Cooley's Tower Snow Jr. --
tsnow@cooley.com -- see things differently. Those involved in the
deal, known as a private investment in public equity, or PIPE deal
for short, were sophisticated investors who had been warned
Ecotality was operating at a loss and their investment was "highly
speculative and risky."
"This case is about professional investment funds who made a high-
risk investment in an unprofitable company, seeking extraordinary
returns in the face of previously disclosed and acknowledged
risks," the lawyers argue in a motion to dismiss. Mr. Snow was
out of the country and unavailable for comment and other Cooley
partners working on the case didn't respond to messages.
Late last month, a federal judge in San Francisco allowed the
heart of the PIPE investors' securities fraud claims to move
forward against former Ecotality CEO H. Ravi Brar. The same judge
previously slammed a proposed class action against company
executives filed on behalf of all company shareholders, calling it
"a redundant and repetitive tangle of verbosity."
Though given leave to amend, plaintiffs lawyers at Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd filed notice of a proposed $1.1 million settlement
in October.
The PIPE deal participants -- Special Situations Fund III QP L.P.,
Special Situations Cayman Fund L.P. and Wolverine Flagship Fund
Trading Ltd. -- opted out of the investor class action and filed a
new suit, bolstering their accusations with documents obtained
through Freedom of Information Act requests served on the
government.
The proposed settlement, after deducting attorney fees and costs,
would provide about three cents on the dollar for Ecotality
investors, according to Rolnick's partner, Steven Hecht --
shecht@lowenstein.com
FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY
Mr. Brar, who had previous stints as CFO of Pac-West Telecomm Inc.
and software outsourcing company Exigen Services, joined Ecotality
as its CFO in November 2010 and was promoted to CEO in September
2012 as the company was attempting to shift from dependency on its
DOE grant to commercial sales.
But even in 2013, the government still accounted for the vast
majority of company revenues. The Department of Energy awarded
Ecotality's EV Project a $99.8 million grant as part of the
federal government's economic stimulus in August 2009, the same
year the department bestowed a $535 million conditional loan
guarantee to Solyndra Inc.
The EV Project, a plan to study and expand the nation's electric
car charging infrastructure, counted Nissan and Chevy as corporate
partners. The project provided some electric vehicle owners with
residential chargers for free and was poised to jump-start
Ecotality's nationwide network of publicly available chargers.
Given the company's dependency on government funds, the PIPE
investors sought multiple assurances about Ecotality's
relationship with the government in their June 2013 stock-purchase
agreement, including that Ecotality had complied with its
government contracts, that it had been provided with no written
notice that it was out of line with its responsibilities to
government, and that it hadn't received a "cure notice" from the
government.
The PIPE deal closed on June 18. In their lawsuit against the
company, the investors claim Brar and others were well aware by
then that the company's relationship with the DOE was fraying.
Four days before closing, the investors contend, DOE officials
sent the company a letter demanding that it submit plans to remedy
a problem meeting a long-standing "significant" deadline. The
letter was never disclosed. Rather, the company "lulled those
investors into the false sense of security that the company's
stated risk factors had not yet materialized," the Lowenstein
Sandler lawyers allege.
OPTING OUT
In August 2013, Ecotality announced the government had cut off
funding. The filing also disclosed that the company had been
unable to find additional commercial funding or generate enough
charger sales to support its operations.
Plaintiffs lawyers filed a pair of proposed class actions that
month accusing the company and its executives of making a string
of misleading statements and omissions in the run-up to the
announcements. The suits were consolidated before U.S. District
Judge Samuel Conti and lawyers at Robbins Geller filed a 63-page
amended complaint in January 2014.
Conti, in his order dismissing the suit, wrote that the complaint
was "hardly a model of clarity or concision." Plaintiffs claimed
Mr. Brar repeatedly said the EV Project was "on track" though he
had to know that wasn't the case prior to the sudden announcement
that funding had been cut. Judge Conti, however, found that the
facts that the plaintiffs laid out "strongly suggest that Mr. Brar
may have been entirely truthful when he said Ecotality was 'on
track' to complete the [EV Project]." The judge dismissed the
case, but gave the plaintiffs a chance to amend some of their
claims.
The PIPE investors and their lawyers were ready to file a suit of
their own and informed class counsel at Robbins Geller that they
intended to opt out of the class action.
Lowenstein's Rolnick said he was surprised to see that on the day
that the PIPE investors filed their lawsuit, the class action
lawyers filed their notice of settlement. After Judge Conti's
order, the Robbins Geller team was hardly negotiating from a
position of strength. All the class action plaintiffs had at the
time they settled "were a bunch of dismissed claims," Mr. Rolnick
said.
"They didn't put themselves in a position to achieve that much for
the class."
Opt-outs in securities class actions are rare, according to a 2013
report by Cornerstone Research and Latham & Watkins . Of the 1,272
securities class action settlements filed between 1996 and 2011,
just 38 cases, or about 3 percent, had at least one plaintiff opt
out of the class. The vast majority of those were in very large
settlements. In cases such as Ecotality, opt-outs are even more
rare. According to the study, less than one percent of class
action cases with settlements below $20 million had plaintiffs who
opted out.
LETTER OF THE LAW
The PIPE investors obtained a copy of the government's June 14
letter to Ecotality through a FOIA request. Armed with that
letter, dated four days prior to the close of their private stock
purchase, they seem to be gaining traction where the class action
lawyers couldn't.
In a motion to dismiss, the executives' lawyers at Cooley argued
that the plaintiffs hadn't pleaded facts showing that company had
received the DOE's letter by the June 18 closing or that Mr. Brar
was aware of its contents.
Even if Mr. Brar had received the letter, the Cooley team called
it "absurd" to suggest the letter amounted to a "cure notice" or
notification that it was in breach of its DOE contract.
"Plaintiffs cannot seriously maintain that the DOE letter would
have been material under any scenario," the brief states.
The argument fell flat with Judge Conti, who called any contention
that the letter was a routine correspondence "laughable."
In his decision last month, Judge Conti adopted a U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit presumption that a letter is
received three days after mailing. Given its contents, he found
it was also safe to assume Mr. Brar would have been made aware of
it.
"It would indeed be absurd to suggest that Ecotality's management
was unaware that its critical revenue stream was at risk," Judge
Conti wrote. "A letter from DOE explaining that Ecotality's
participation in the EV Project might be terminated absent
immediate action (the letter set a three-week deadline for
proposing a corrective action plan) was the sort of information
certain to go straight to top management."
Just how long it took for the letter to reach Mr. Brar's desk,
Conti wrote was "precisely the sort of issue on which discovery is
warranted."
EDUCATION TRAINING: "Momen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sadid Momen, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. Education Training Corporation, Case No. 9:15-cv-
80442 (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Education Training Corporation is a Florida Profit Corporation
that provides educational services in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
EMULEX CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Varjabedian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00554
(C.D. Cal., April 8, 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.
Emulex Corporation is a Delaware corporation that manufactures
storage adapters, network interface cards, encrypting adapters,
controller chips, server management chips, embedded bridges,
switches and routers, and connectivity management software.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Bower SBN 119546
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
mschreiner@faruqilaw.com
EXXON MOBIL: Attorney Defends $225MM Pollution Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
David Porter and Jonathan Fahey, writing for The Associated Press,
report that Exxon Mobil's top lawyer said on April 15 that a
heavily criticized $225 million pollution settlement with New
Jersey was reasonable and that the nearly $9 billion initially
sought by the state shouldn't be used as a barometer because it
was calculated using faulty methodology.
The settlement announced in March has drawn criticism from
environmentalists and lawmakers in both parties who have said the
state should have waited for a judge's ruling instead of settling
for what they have a characterized as pennies on the dollar.
"The critics who complain about settling an $8.9 billion case of
$225 million are ignoring the reality of how that $8.9 billion was
calculated," Jack Balagia, ExxonMobil's general counsel, told The
Associated Press.
Mr. Balagia called the $8.9 billion "not a real number" because it
vastly overstated the amount of damage and didn't demonstrate a
direct link between the pollution at refinery sites in Linden and
Bayonne and ground contamination.
"They assume if there's a drop of contamination on the soil it
results in 100 percent of the injury," he said. "They don't relate
the circumstance on the ground to what the real injury was."
The yearslong battle wound up in front of a judge last year and he
was due to rule on the amount Exxon Mobil was liable to pay when
the settlement was reached. If approved by the judge after a 60-
day public comment period and a review by the state Department of
Environmental Protection, the settlement would be the second-
largest natural resource settlement against a corporate defendant
in the country's history and the largest in state history, the DEP
said in a statement. Only the Exxon-Valdez payout was larger.
Mr. Balagia said Exxon Mobil felt it presented "a great case" at
trial but that the settlement avoided lengthy and costly appeals
and provided finality.
"The state gets a record settlement and we get to move forward,"
he said.
Democratic state Sen. Raymond Lesniak, an outspoken critic of the
settlement, noted on April 15 that the settlement allows Exxon
Mobil to resolve pollution claims at 16 other Exxon Mobil
facilities, as well as hundreds of service stations where little
or no damage was detected. Sen. Lesniak has requested public
records for the results of testing done at those stations.
Sen. Lesniak, a practicing lawyer, said he would have preferred to
see the litigation play out.
"They went through a series of motions, then they went through an
eight-month trial," he said. "The only thing left would have been
an appeal of the judge's decision, which would have taken a year
or two. I'd be more than willing to wait. It would have been well
worth it."
FARMERS INSURANCE: D. Nev. Judge Won't Grant Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the District of Nevada denied
plaintiff's motion for class certification of the case NAYANANANDA
RATNAYAKE, individually, and on behalf others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE d/b/a FARMERS; and DOES
I-V and ROES VI-X, inclusive, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-01668-
APG-CWH (D. Nev.)
The plaintiff Nayanananda Ratnayake alleges that Farmers has not
provided some of its customers with a specific premium discount
required by Nevada law and the NDI's 1993 Order and has not
allowed some of its customers to stack their under-insured
motorist policies as required by Nevada law. Ratnayake filed a
lawsuit alleging underinsured motorist claims, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair claim
practices, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, and (6) fraud.
The defendant Insurance Exchange alleges that it provides anti-
stacking discounts, but that it calculates them by actuarializing
the anti-stacking risk as part of its multi-car discount.
Plaintiff moved to certify three subclasses against Farmers. All
three proposed subclasses include insureds with policies that
contain anti-stacking provisions who allegedly received an
insufficient discount under Nevada law.
Judge Gordon denied plaintiff's motion for class certification and
the case is remanded to the Nevada state court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
A copy of Judge Gordon's order dated February 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/O4v9gtfrom Lealge.com
Nayanananda Ratnayake, Plaintiff, represented by:
Ines Olevic-Saleh, Esq.
Jesse M. Sbaih, Esq.
JESSE SBAIH & ASSOCIATES, LTD
170 S. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
Henderson, NV 89012
Telephone: 702-896-2529
Facsimile: 702-896-0529
- and -
Janette L Ferguson -- janette.ferguson@dgslaw.com -- at Davis
Graham & Stubbs, LLP
Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendant, represented by J.
Christopher Jorgensen -- CJorgensen@LRRLaw.com -- Lindsay C
Demaree -- at Lewis Roca Rothgerber; Janette L Ferguson --
janette.ferguson@dgslaw.com -- Kimberly Spiering -- Thomas P.
Johnson -- tom.johnson@dgslaw.com -- at Davis Graham and Stubbs
LLP
FCA US: Faces "Besley" Suit Over Misleading Truck Engine Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert K. Besley Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FCA US, LLC f/k/a Chrysler Group, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01511 (D.S.C., April 6, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant made false and deceptive information concerning the
equipped rear axle ratio of its pickup trucks at the time of
purchase or lease.
FCA US, LLC is a Delaware Corporation that is one of the world's
largest automobile manufacturers, having its principal place of
business at 1000 Chrysler Drive in Auburn Hills, Michigan.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William E. Hopkins Jr., Esq.
HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC
12019 Ocean Highway
Post Office Box 1885
Pawleys Island, SC 29585
Telephone: (843) 314-4202
Facsimile: (843) 314-9365
E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com
- and -
William G. Besley, Esq.
HOWSER, NEWMAN & BESLEY, LLC
1508 Washington St.
Post Office 12009 (29211)
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 758-6000
Facsimile: (803) 758-4445
E-mail: wbesley@hnblaw.com
FREDDIE MAC: 3 Former top Executives Settle SEC Disclosures Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a former CEO and two former top
executives at mortgage giant Freddie Mac have settled a government
lawsuit. They were accused of understating the amounts of high-
risk mortgages that Freddie held just before the housing bubble
burst in 2007.
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the settlement
late on April 14 with former Freddie CEO Richard Syron; Patricia
Cook, an executive vice president and chief business officer; and
Donald Bisenius, a senior vice president.
They agreed to donations to a fund for Freddie investors of
$250,000 for Mr. Syron, $50,000 for Cook and $10,000 for Mr.
Bisenius.
The government rescued Freddie and larger sibling Fannie Mae in
2008 as they neared collapse after incurring massive losses on
risky mortgages. Taxpayers spent about $187 billion to rescue the
two companies, including $71 billion for Freddie, based in McLean,
Virginia.
Since the government takeover, a federal regulator has controlled
the companies' financial decisions. The gradual recovery of the
housing market has made the companies profitable again, and they
have fully repaid the government loans.
Fannie and Freddie buy home loans from banks and other lenders,
package them into bonds with a guarantee against default and then
sell them to investors around the world. Together they own or
guarantee about half of all U.S. mortgages, worth around $5
trillion.
The SEC also sued former Fannie CEO Daniel Mudd and two other
former Fannie executives. They have disputed the allegations.
Messrs. Syron and Mudd led the mortgage giants in 2007, when home
prices began to collapse.
According to the SEC, Fannie and Freddie misrepresented their
exposure to mortgages for borrowers with weak credit in reports,
speeches and congressional testimony. The SEC said Freddie told
investors in late 2006 that it held between $2 billion and $6
billion of subprime mortgages on its books -- but its actual
subprime holdings were actually closer to $141 billion, or 10
percent of its portfolio in 2006, and $244 billion, or 14 percent,
by 2008.
"I am deeply relieved and gratified by [Wednes]day's announcement
that the longstanding litigation with the SEC has been resolved,"
Mr. Syron said in a statement on April 14. "It has been a long,
tough road and I am happy for the opportunity to move on with my
life."
Mr. Bisenius said he was gratified that the SEC had agreed to end
its case. "I look forward to focusing on the future, including my
career, and spending time with family and friends," he said.
FRESENIUS USA: "Casidsid" Stays in C.D. Cal. District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of
California denied plaintiffs' motion for remand in the case Sol
Casidsid, et al., v. Fresenius USA, Inc., et al., CASE NO. CV 14-
9702-JGB (AGRX) (C.D. Cal.)
Plaintiffs Sol Casidsid and 43 other individual named plaintiffs
filed their complaint against defendants Fresenius USA, Inc.,
Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc., Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc., Fresenius Medical Care North America, Inc.,
Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc., Walter L. Weisman, Ben Lipps, and
fictitious persons in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, on April 2, 2014. The complaint asserted products
liability claims related to personal injuries and death resulting
from the use of defendants' products "GranuFlo Dry Acid
Concentrate" and "NaturaLyte Liquid Acid Concentrate."
Numerous other GranuFlo/NaturaLyte cases were also filed in
California state courts and on April 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
request to coordinate their claims as part of the judicial council
coordinated proceedings (JCCP). JCCP court granted the petition,
and the case was coordinated into the JCCP, on May 5, 2104.
On July 16, 2014, 50 plaintiffs in another GranuFlo/NaturaLyte
case filed a request to coordinate their claims into the JCCP. The
JCCP court granted the petition on August 14, 2104, after which
that case was coordinated into the JCCP, and the total number of
plaintiffs in the coordinated cases exceeded 100 plaintiffs.
On December 1, 2014, the JCCP coordination trial judge approved
the parties' stipulation to select the claims of only four
plaintiffs for discovery and trial. The trials would involve a
single plaintiff per trial. Defendants filed their Notice of
Removal on December 18, 2014. Plaintiffs moved to remand on
January 20, 2015.
District Judge Bernal denied plaintiffs' motion to remand and
vacated the March 2, 2015, hearing.
A copy of Judge Bernal's order dated February 26, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/5Kp5Od from Leagle.com
Plaintiffs, represented by Baharak Dejban -
bdejban@kbadvocates.com -- at Khorrami Boucher, LLP; Raymond Paul
Boucher -- ray@boucher.la -- at Boucher LLP
Fresenius USA, Inc., Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc., Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Fresenius Marketing USA, Inc. and Ben
Lipps, Defendants, represented by Carolin Sahimi --
carolin.sahimi@hugheshubbard.com -- David H Stern --
david.stern@hugheshubbard.com -- at Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP;
Juanita Rose Brooks -- brooks@fr.com -- Olga I May -- omay@fr.com
-- Roger A Denning -- denning@fr.com -- Tamara Fraizer --
fraizer@fr.com -- at Fish and Richardson PC
Walter L Weisman, Defendant, represented by Colin H Murray --
Colin.Murray@bakermckenzie.com -- Keith L Wurster --
Keith.Wurster@bakermckenzie.com -- at Baker and McKenzie LLP
GAMESTOP INC: Court Approves Class Settlement in "Lusby" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement in the case THOMAS
LUSBY, SCOTT WILSEY, RUDAE BROWN, and DINA LE FEVRE, Individually,
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GAMESTOP INC. and GAMESTOP CORPORATION, Defendants, NO. C12-03783
HRL (N.D. Cal.)
Class Representatives Thomas Lusby, Scott Wilsey, Rudae Brown, and
Dina LeFevre assert wage and hour claims against defendants
Gamestop Inc. and GameStop Corp. The Class Representatives move
for an order: (1) awarding attorneys' fees to class counsel; (2)
awarding reimbursement of litigation expenses; (3) awarding
service enhancements to class representatives; (4) awarding
reimbursement of claims administration fees and costs; (5)
granting final approval of class action settlement; and (6)
dismissing action with prejudice.
Magistrate Judge Lloyd granted plaintiffs' motion for final
approval to the settlement class, consisting of all persons who
are and/or were employed as overtime-eligible employees by
GameStop, in one or more of GameStop's California retail stores,
between June 21, 2010 and June 30, 2012, with seven subclasses.
The court approves the terms set forth in the settlement agreement
and finds that the settlement agreement is, in all respects, fair,
adequate, and reasonable, and directs the parties to effectuate
the settlement agreement according to its terms. The court finds
that the settlement agreement has been reached as a result of good
faith, arm's length negotiations between the parties. The court
further finds that the parties have conducted extensive
investigation and research, and their attorneys are able to
reasonably evaluate their respective positions.
Defendant shall pay the settlement class members pursuant to the
claim procedure described in the settlement agreement. Defendant
shall have no further liability for costs, expenses, interest,
attorneys' fees, or for any other charge, expense, or liability,
except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court grants
final approval of the allocation of $5,000 pursuant to California
Labor Code sections 2698, et seq., to the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Seventy-five percent of
that amount will be payable to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, and the remaining twenty-five percent shall be
payable to settlement class members.
An award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $250,000 is approved
and awarded to class counsel. This award constitutes one third of
the gross settlement amount. The costs of $10,819.64, which have
already been incurred, as set forth by class counsel, are fair,
reasonable, responsible, and were incurred for the benefit of the
class. These types of costs are appropriate for reimbursement and
are hereby approved and shall be awarded to class counsel. The
court finds that the services provided by the claims administrator
were for the benefit of the settlement class, and the cost of
$40,000 is fair, reasonable, and appropriate for reimbursement,
pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement.
The court approves payment to Gilardi & Co., LLC for claims
administration expenses, which includes all costs and fees
incurred to date, as well as estimated costs and fees involved in
completing the administration of the settlement agreement.
A copy of Judge Magistrate Lloyd's order dated March 31, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/MaPTX6 from Leagle.com
Thomas Lusby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Ann DeSario --
mdesario@scalaw.com -- Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- at
Scott Cole & Associates, APC
Defendants, represented by Carrie Anne Gonell --
cgonell@morganlewis.com -- John David Hayashi --
jhayashi@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP
GAP INC: Can't Force Outlet Shoppers to Arbitrate Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal and Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, report
that a California judge on March 19 ruled The Gap Inc. can't force
plaintiffs to arbitrate a putative class action alleging the
retailer misrepresents the quality of outlet store items, ruling
an arbitration provision attached to the plaintiffs' Gap Visa card
protects the card's third-party issuer, not the retailer.
Named plaintiff Linda Rubenstein had alleged the Gap deceived
customers about the quality and supposed savings of outlet store
items, and the retailer had moved to compel arbitration, arguing
that credit agreements Rubenstein entered into when she received a
Gap Visa, GapCard and BananaCard -- for Gap-owned Banana Republic
LLC -- contained arbitration clauses that apply in this case.
Before the March 19 hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Kenneth Freeman issued a written tentative ruling denying Gap's
motion to compel arbitration, writing that the credit agreements'
arbitration provisions clearly are meant to cover claims against
their bank issuer GE Money Bank and that as Rubenstein did not
name the bank as a co-defendant, the provision does not apply to
Gap.
"It is evident that defendant Gap is not a party to the Gap Visa
Card agreement," he wrote. "The terms 'We,' 'Us,' and 'Our' are
specifically defined under the agreement. Gap is included in the
definition of 'We,' 'Us,' and 'Our' only if Gap is named as a
co-party with the bank in a claim asserted by plaintiff."
After brief arguments from the two sides, Judge Freeman said that
"there's really not much" either side said that wasn't in their
moving papers, and made his tentative ruling his final ruling.
Ms. Rubenstein's suit against the Gap, filed in August 2014,
alleged the company dupes consumers into believing that the
clothing they buy at the retailer's outlet stores was first sold
at traditional Gap and Banana Republic stores. In actuality, the
clothing was made specifically for the outlets and is of a lesser
quality, the suit said.
Ms. Rubenstein's counsel, Kirtland & Packard LLP, also filed a
similar suit against Saks Fifth Avenue LLC the same day in August,
and two suits were one of a handful filed around that time against
clothing retailers over similar deceptive marketing practices.
Michael Kors LLC and Neiman Marcus Ltd. also have been sued for
engaging in similar marketing practices.
Ms. Rubenstein's suit claimed the company conceals a "Factory
Store" label with three squares on it on clothing it sells at its
outlets. The label indicates that the clothes were made
specifically for the outlet and are of a lesser quality than
traditional Gap and Banana Republic clothing, according to the
complaint.
The suits came after a group of congressional Democrats urged the
Federal Trade Commission to investigate this practice in retail
outlets. In a letter to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez in January,
the lawmakers said they were concerned that the surging popularity
of outlet malls "may have fueled some deceptive marketing
practices."
On March 19, Judge Freeman said he would hold off on lifting the
stay on class certification discovery until the parties had met
and conferred to discuss how plaintiffs could amend their
pleadings to add a claim for damages under California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Louis Kelly, Behram V.
Parekh and Heather M. Baker -- hmb@kirtlandpackard.com -- of
Kirtland & Packard LLP.
The Gap is represented by Esther Ro -- ero@morganlewis.com -- and
Joseph Duffy -- jduffy@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP.
The case is Linda Rubenstein v. The Gap Inc., case number BC555010
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles.
GENERAL MILLS: D. Minn. Judge Certified Class in "Ebert" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donovan W. Frank of the District of Minnesota ruled
on the parties' motions in the case Karl Ebert, Carol Krauze, and
Jackie Milbrandt, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Mills, Inc., Defendant,
CIVIL NO. 13-3341 (DWF/JJK) (D. Minn.)
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against General Mills,
Inc. alleging that GMI caused the chemical substance
trichloroethylene (TCE) to be released into the area surrounding a
former GMI facility in the Como neighborhood in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Plaintiffs assert five legal claims on a class basis:
(1) violation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); (2) common law
negligence; (3) private nuisance; (4) willful and wanton
misconduct; and (5) violation of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Plaintiffs appear to seek certification of
only the following narrow issues: (1) whether GMI is liable to
owners of the properties in the defined Class Area; and (2)
whether injunctive relief is warranted to compel comprehensive
remediation.
Plaintiffs presented two expert witnesses, Dr. Lorne G. Everett
and Dr. David Ozonoff. Dr. Everett states that GMI's disposal of
"large quantities of toxic chemicals, including TCE, at the
facility, has resulted in widespread soil vapor contamination, and
that he bases his opinion on a review of scientific data, while
Dr. Ozonoff opines that TCE is a carcinogen that poses an imminent
and substantial danger to the residents of the proposed Class Area
and that the weight-of-evidence methodology favors the proposition
that exposure to TCE found in the proposed Class Area through
inhalation presents an increased and unacceptable risk of cancer
and other negative health effects.
Plaintiffs seek class certification, and defendant moved to
exclude the testimony of experts, Dr. Everett and Dr. Ozonoff,
under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Judge Frank granted plaintiffs' amended motion to certify class
and granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to
exclude expert testimony and opinions of Dr. Ozonoff, in such that
the court declines to exclude Dr. Ozonoff's opinions relating to
environmental contamination in the proposed Class Area and the
public health risk to the population in the proposed Class Area,
but does exclude Dr. Ozonoff's opinions relating to the real
estate market. Defendant General Mills' Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony and Opinions of Dr. Lorne G. Everett is denied.
A copy of Judge Frank's memorandum opinion and order dated
February 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/HyiumX from
Leagle.com.
Counsel for Plaintiffs:
Edward J. Manzke, Esq.
Shawn M. Collins., Esq.
THE COLLINS LAW FIRM PC
1770 Park Street, Suite 200
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: 630-687-9838
Facsimile: 630-527-1193
- and -
Michael D. Hayes, Esq. -- mhayes@vblhc.com - Norman B. Berger,
Esq. -- nberger@vblhc.com -- at Varga Berger Ledsky Hayes & Casey;
Anne T. Regan, Esq. -- anne.regan@zimmreed.com -- J. Gordon Rudd,
Jr., Esq. -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- at Zimmerman Reed, PLLP;
and Mark H. Thieroff, Esq. -- markthieroff@siegelbrill.com -- at
Siegel Brill, P.A.
Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq. -- bhulse@blackwellburke.com -- Corey Lee
Gordon, Esq. -- cgordon@blackwellburke.com -- Emily A. Ambrose,
Esq. -- eambrose@blackwellburke.com -- Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq. --
blackwell@blackwellburke.com -- at Blackwell Burke PA; Jeffrey
Fowler, Esq. -- jfowler@omm.com-- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Mark
J. Carpenter, Esq. -- mark@carpenter-law-firm.com -- at Carpenter
Law Firm PLLC
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Sued Over Credit Card Payment Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David S. Muransky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-
60716 (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
unlawful practice of printing the last four digits of the
consumers' credit card as well as the first six digits of their
account number upon making the payment using a credit card.
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation whose
principal address is 333 West 34th Street, New York, New York
10001. It is both a global manufacturer and worldwide retailer of
premium chocolates and other confectionaries with locations in
more than 80 countries.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Owens, Esq.
SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
Hollywood, FL 33019
Telephone: (954) 589-0588
Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
- and -
Bret L. Lusskin Jr., Esq.
BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 302
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (954) 454-5841
Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com
GRAND PARKWAY: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Cisneros, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees and former employees v. Grand Parkway Imaging &
Sleep Center, Inc. d/b/a Greatwood Imaging Center, and Elite HS
Staffing, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00915 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants operate an ambulatory health care facility in
Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Wilson Reed, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF G SCOTT FIDDLER PC
1004 Congress, Ste 200
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 228-0070
Facsimile: (713) 228-0078
E-mail: areed@fiddlerlaw.com
GREAT ALASKAN: Faces "Mears" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merry Mears, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Great Alaskan Bush Company and Damian
Hartze, Case No. 2:15-cv-00612 (D. Ariz., April 6, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all work performed over 40 hours per week.
The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in
Phoenix, Arizona.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
David Wayne Hodges, Esq.
KENNEDY HODGES LLP
711 W Alabama St.
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com
dhodges@kennedyhodges.com
- and -
Michelle Ray Matheson, Esq.
MATHESON & MATHESON PLC
15300 N 90th St., Ste. 550
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Telephone: (480) 889-8951
Facsimile: (480) 339-4538
E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com
GULFSTREAM PARK: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Ogunnaike, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. d/b/a
Gulfstream Park Racing and Casino, Case No. 0:15-cv-60738 (S.D.
Fla., April 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. owns and operates a
racetrack and casino in Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher John Whitelock, Esq.
WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES
300 SE 13th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1154
Telephone: (954) 463-2001
Facsimile: 463-0410
E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com
GULLUOGLU LLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Gulluoglu LLC, Wholesale Gulluoglu LLC, Gulluoglu
Brighton LLC, John Doe Corps l-2, Ercan Karabeyoglu and Mehmet
Nejat Gullu, Case No. 1:15-cv-02727 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
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: anne@leelitigation.com
cklee@leelitigation.com
GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Cal. Judge Ruled on Defendant's Bid to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright II of the Central District of
California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
in the case AMY FRIEDMAN, JUDI MILLER, and KRYSTAL HENRY-McARTHUR,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GUTHY-RENKER LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-cv-
06009-ODW(AGRX) (C.D. Cal.)
Guthy-Renker LLC is a direct marketing corporation with a
principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. It sells
a variety of beauty-related products, to include a line of
haircare products called "WEN by Chaz Dean.
Plaintiffs Amy Friedman, Judi Miller and Krystal Henry McArthur
alleged that WEN causes significant hair loss as the result of a
design and/or manufacturing defect. Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint raises seven causes of action: (1) two theories of
breach of warranty -- implied warranty under Cal. Com. Code
Section 2314, and express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301; (2) California's
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Civ. Code Section 17200; (3)
California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Civ. Code Section 17500;
(4) common law assumpsit; (5) failure to warn negligence; (6)
failure to test negligence; and (7) strict products liability.
Plaintiffs propose a class defined as: "All persons or entities in
the United States who purchased WEN Cleansing Conditioner from
August 1, 2009 to present."
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Judge Wright granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to dismiss. The Court said: (1) Plaintiff Ms. Henry-McArthur is
bound by the arbitration agreement from Guthy-Renker's website and
therefore her claims are dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and
(2) Count IV of the First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim
and is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court rejected
Guthy-Renker's claims that Ms. Friedman is bound by the
arbitration agreement and that the MMWA claim is inappropriate.
A copy of Judge Wright's order dated February 27, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/Nhv3qTfrom Leagle.com
* * *
On March 13, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation regarding
the class certification deadlines, in compliance with the Court's
October 17, 2014 Order. In the Joint Stipulation, the parties
request a bifurcation of class certification and the merits, and
propose a December 18, 2015 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their
motion for class certification.
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, in his order dated March 17,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/op2ZNsfrom
Leagle.com, rejected both proposals saying the proposed class
certification deadline is arbitrary and excessive, and the Court
sees no need to bifurcate the discovery in this matter.
The Court rejected the proposed timeline in the Joint Stipulation,
and the deadline to file a class certification is on June 17,
2015.
Amy Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Tate Shippen-Murray
-- bmurray@jjllplaw.com -- Douglas L Johnson --
djohnson@jjllplaw.com -- Neville Lawrence Johnson --
njohnson@jjllplaw.com -- at Johnson and Johnson LLP; Brian W
Warwick -- Janet R Varnell -- info@varnellandwarwick.com -- at
Varnell and Warwick PA; William H Anderson --
wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- Charles J LaDuca --
charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Michael J Flannery --
mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- at Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP
Judi Miller and Krystal Henry-McArthur, Plaintiffs, represented by
Douglas L Johnson-- djohnson@jjllplaw.com -- at Johnson and
Johnson LLP; Michael J Flannery-- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- at
Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP
Guthy-Renker LLC, Defendant, represented by David J Schindler --
david.schindler@lw.com -- Jonathan Michael Jackson --
jonathan.jackson@lw.com -- at Latham and Watkins LLP; Dina M Cox
-- dcox@lewiswagner.com -- Robert M Baker, IV -- at Lewis Wagner
LLP
HAR MASPETH: "Chin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sang Wook Chin, on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Har
Maspeth Corp. d/b/a H Mart and Elizabeth Kweon, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01937 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Har Maspeth Corp. is a manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer of
Korean food and snacks with its principal place of business at
44-28 55th Avenue, Maspeth, NY 11378.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seoung Y. Lim, Esq.
KIM, CHO & LIM, LLC
460 Bergen Blvd, Suite 201
Palisades Park, NJ 07650
Telephone: (201) 585-7400
Facsimile: (201) 585-7422
E-mail: joshualim@kcllawfirm.com
HERITAGE PARTNERS: Judge Grants Defendants' Bid to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donovan W. Frank of the District of Minnesota
granted defendants' motion in the case Robert G. Ruud and Diane L.
Rudd, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Anthony John Friendshuh; Cadro Kuhlmann; Heritage
Partners, LLC; Legal-Ease, LLC; Dennis Lawrence; and PHL Variable
Insurance Company, d/b/a Phoenix, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 14-1735
(DWF/LIB) (D. Min.)
Plaintiffs Robert and Diane Rudd are retired married senior
citizens couple who live in Deerwood, Minnesota, and have a
Pacific Life annuity.
Defendant Friendshuh is President and co-founder of Heritage,
which is a business that focuses on selling insurance products,
including annuities, and estate planning documents to senior
citizens. Defendant PHL, which does business as Phoenix, is a
stock company.
Plaintiffs alleged that they were persuaded by Friendshuh to
exchange the Pacific Life annuity for a PHL annuity for a number
of financial benefits, but the exchange caused them to suffer
significant financial loss due to reduction in value and payment
fees.
Plaintiffs first filed the action in Minnesota state court in
Hennepin County District Court, asserting claims against
defendants Friendshuh, Kuhlmann, Heritage, and defendants Dennis
Lawrence and Legal-Ease, LLC. The complaint was amended twice,
including one time to join PHL as a Defendant. Defendants removed
the case to federal court after PHL was added as a party. In their
second amended complaint, plaintiffs assert the following claims:
(1) fraud against all defendants (Count I); (2) violations of the
Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), M.S.A. Section
325D.44(5) & (8) and the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), Minn.
Stat. Section 325F.69 against all defendants) (Count II); (3)
unauthorized practice of law against Friendshuh, Heritage,
Lawrence and Legal-Ease (Count III); and (4) consumer fraud
against Friendshuh, Heritage, Lawrence and Legal-Ease (Count IV).
Defendants PHL, Friendshuh, and Heritage move to dismiss Counts I
and II as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act (SLUSA).
Judge Frank granted defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
second amended class action complaint, and counts I and II are
dismissed without prejudice.
A copy of Judge Frank's memorandum opinion and order dated
February 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ZJCOhY from
Leagle.com
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq. -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- Karl L.
Cambronne, Esq. -- kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com -- at Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, counsel for Plaintiffs
Mark E. Czuchry, Esq. -- mark@meclawfirm.com -- at Czuchry Law
Firm, LLC, counsel for Defendants Anthony John Friendshuh and
Heritage Partners, LLC
Defendants Cadro Kuhlmann, Legal-Ease, LLC, and Dennis Lawrence,
pro se
Hutson B. Smelley, Esq. -- hutson.smelley@emhllp.com -- Rebecca A.
Muff, Esq. -- rebecca.muff@emhllp.com -- Thomas F. A.
Hetherington, Esq. -- tom.hetherington@emhllp.com -- Henry M.
Helgen, III, Esq. -- at Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP,
counsel for PHL Variable Insurance Company, d/b/a Phoenix
HOFFMANN LA ROCHE: Accutane Liability Suits Face Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that hundreds of products liability suits over the acne drug
Accutane face dismissal in the wake of an April 2 decision that
the warnings provided to prescribing doctors after April 10, 2002,
were adequate as a matter of law.
The ruling by Judge Nelson Johnson, who presides over the more
than 6,700 Accutane cases consolidated on a multicounty litigation
docket in Atlantic County, will knock out cases by New Jersey
plaintiffs who started taking the medication after that date.
But it will also impact plaintiffs from other states where the law
is comparable to New Jersey's.
In moving for summary judgment on the issue, the lawyers for
defendants Hoffmann La Roche and Roche Laboratories estimated that
more than 800 suits were brought by plaintiffs who first ingested
Accutane after April 10, 2002.
Judge Johnson has ordered the defendants to provide a form order
listing the affected cases with New Jersey plaintiffs by April 7
but indicated he will give plaintiffs a chance to be heard before
dismissing them.
By April 24, both sides must submit briefs that identify the post-
April 10, 2002, plaintiffs who are not from New Jersey and what
state they are from.
They must also indicate whether those states, like New Jersey,
recognize the learned intermediary doctrine -- which views the
prescribing doctor, rather than the patient, as the intended
audience for warnings about drug dangers -- and permit the
adequacy of such warnings to be decided as a matter of law, rather
than having to go to a jury.
Judge Johnson also required them to brief which of those
jurisdictions have a heavier burden of proof than New Jersey.
A choice-of-law analysis will not be necessary in those cases,
because "those claims must fail," he wrote, noting that Michigan
and Texas appeared to fall into that category.
Choice-of-law hearings to determine what cases filed by out-of-
state plaintiffs will also be dismissed are scheduled to begin May
11.
The plaintiffs had urged that Johnson approach the adequacy
question "plaintiff-by-plaintiff, state-by-state, case-by-case,"
but Judge Johnson called it "prudent to first make a ruling under
New Jersey law; then proceed in a deliberate fashion to the
remaining states in which these claims arise."
In finding that the warnings sufficed, Judge Johnson gave Roche
the benefit of the rebuttable presumption of adequate labeling
provided by New Jersey's Product Liability Act, for drug
manufacturers that comply with U.S. Food and Drug Administration
rules.
Judge Johnson termed it a "super presumption," to be overcome only
in rare cases, where there was intentional misconduct in the form
of "economically driven manipulation of the post-market regulatory
process" or "deliberate concealment or nondisclosure of after-
acquired knowledge of harmful effects."
Plaintiffs had shown neither, Judge Johnson found.
Judge Johnson went beyond the presumption to offer his own view of
the post-April 2002 warnings, which mention the risk of
inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and refer to such symptoms as
severe stomach pain and rectal bleeding.
"Taken as a whole, the warning system crafted by defendants
conveys a meaning as to potential risks and consequences that is
unmistakable," Judge Johnson said. "It is inconceivable to this
court that the reasonable dermatologist (or any physician,
generally) of ordinary education, training and experience could
examine the materials comprising the warning literature and not
immediately conclude that Accutane has been associated with life-
altering side effects, including IBD."
Judge Johnson pointed out that he had requested that originals of
all the warning literature be marked into evidence so it would be
"available for physical examination by any reviewing panel" in the
event of an appeal.
Lead plaintiffs counsel David Buchanan of Seeger Weiss in Newark
said of the ruling, "We are obviously concerned about its impact
on the many New Jersey Accutane users who were seriously and
permanently injured by their use of Roche's drug. The court's
decision, however, stands in sharp contrast to earlier rulings on
the same or earlier warnings for Accutane that have been rendered
over the course of this litigation. Plaintiffs will be pursuing
an appeal."
Paul Schmidt -- pschmidt@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling in
Washington, D.C., a lawyer for Roche, referred a request for
comment to the company's press office, which provided a statement.
"Although the emerging science has largely ruled out any
connection between Accutane and IBD, Roche has for many years
provided strong warnings of the potential relationship, and we are
gratified that the New Jersey court has now joined the federal
court in ruling that Accutane's warnings were appropriate," the
company said in the statement.
James Ferrelli -- JJFerrelli@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris in
Cherry Hill, who represents Ranbaxy, one of several generic drug
companies let out of the Accutane litigation based on preemption
because they provided the same warnings as Roche, said "there's no
factual basis to have a jury second-guess the FDA's regulatory
determination that the current labeling is adequate."
Mr. Ferrelli pointed out that Judge Johnson's ruling was
consistent with that of the federal judge handling the
Accutane/Isotretinoin MDL in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, and added that he expected most of the
post-April 2002-use cases in New Jersey to be thrown out.
"This is a devastating blow for the plaintiffs," Mr. Ferrelli
said.
In deciding the adequacy motion, Judge Johnson first rejected the
plaintiffs' contention that he was bound by the law of the case
doctrine because Judge Carol Higbee, from whom he took over the
Accutane litigation last year, had repeatedly denied similar
motions.
Judge Johnson recited five instances between 2008 and 2012, in
which Judge Higbee, now an appeals court judge, had addressed the
adequacy of Accutane warnings, though some of those warnings were
earlier versions.
"Whatever force the law-of-the-case doctrine may have, it does not
control on this motion because new facts and law eclipse the
record on which prior rulings were based," Judge Johnson said.
He explained that Judge Higbee did not have the benefit of the
reasoning in Bailey v. Wyeth, in which a New Jersey trial judge in
2008 granted a defense motion for summary judgment based on the
presumption of adequate labeling in the context of mass-tort
litigation against Wyeth over hormone replacement therapy.
Bailey was upheld on appeal and the rulings in that case were
approved for publication, Judge Johnson said.
"In light of this new and relevant controlling legal authority,
and to serve the interests of justice, the decisions of the
predecessor judge in this MCL cannot, and will not be followed."
This is the second time Judge Johnson has departed from a prior
ruling by Judge Higbee.
On Feb. 20, he barred plaintiffs from presenting expert testimony
that Accutane causes Crohn's disease on the ground that the
testimony was not scientifically reliable, in part because one
expert relied on animal studies and case studies.
In 2008, Judge Higbee refused to toss out a $2.5 million verdict
on the basis that the expert testimony on causation was based in
part on animal studies and case studies. The Appellate Division
agreed with Judge Higbee on that issue but vacated the verdict on
other grounds. The case was retried to a $25 million verdict that
is now on appeal.
The repercussions of Judge Johnson's ruling regarding Crohn's
disease are still playing out. The defendants have asserted that
it requires him to throw out more than 3,200 cases.
The plaintiffs must file their own list of cases affected by that
ruling by the end of April.
HOOTERS OF HIGHWAY: "Ritchey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natashy Ritchey, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hooters of Highway 119 Pelham, LLC and
Hooters Of Pelham, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00563 (N.D. Ala., April
3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Pelham,
Alabama.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Diandra S. Debrosse-Zimmermann, Esq.
ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE
2332 2nd Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 983-7985
E-mail: fuli@zarzaur.com
- and -
James H. McFerrin, Esq.
MCFERRIN LAW FIRM
265 Riverchase Parkway East, Suite 202
Birmingham, AL 35244
Telephone: (205) 870-5704
Facsimile: (205) 985-5093
E-mail: jhmcferrin@bellsouth.net
HORIZON BLUE: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a putative class action against Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of
New Jersey over a data breach covering 839,000 members has been
dismissed after a federal judge ruled the plaintiffs failed to
show an injury sufficient to confer standing.
The suit stemmed from the November 2013 theft of two laptop
computers containing member data from Horizon's office in Newark.
The suit argued that the four individual plaintiffs, and the
class, were put at risk of identity theft as a result of the
breach, which included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers and medical histories. But U.S. District Judge
Claire Cecchi of the District of New Jersey granted Horizon's
motion to dismiss on March 31.
Judge Cecchi ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring
claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act because they failed to
assert any post-breach misuse of the compromised data and because
their generalized allegations of harm were insufficient.
Three plaintiffs -- Courtney Diana, Karen Pekelney and Mark Meisel
-- claimed standing based on economic injuries, for receiving
"less than they bargained for" when they paid their health
insurance premiums; violation of common law and statutory rights;
and because they suffered "an imminent risk of future harm."
Judge Cecchi rejected the economic injury claim, citing case law
that described a similar claim as "too flimsy to support
standing." As for the common law and statutory rights claim,
Judge Cecchi said that a mere showing that the law has been
violated or that a statute will reward litigants in general on a
showing of a violation, without demonstrating some form of injury,
did not establish standing. As for the imminent risk of harm,
Judge Cecchi said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
held in a 2011 ruling in Reilly v. Ceridian that an increased risk
of identity theft resulting from a security breach was
insufficient to confer standing.
The plaintiffs, citing cases rejected by the Third Circuit in
Reilly, argued that a sophisticated, intentional or malicious data
theft could be an indicator that future harm from a data breach is
imminent. Judge Cecchi rejected that argument, finding that the
theft of two laptops in the present case was no more sophisticated
than the hacking of a computer system in Reilly.
Judge Cecchi also rejected the claim of a fourth plaintiff,
Mitchell Rindner, who alleged the parties who stole the Horizon
laptops submitted a fraudulent 2013 income tax return in his and
his wife's names and stole their tax refund.
According to Judge Cecchi, Horizon disputed his claim because the
stolen laptops contained no information about Mr. Rindner's wife
that would permit a thief to file a tax return in her name.
Horizon argued that Mr. Rindner's identity was stolen by other
means, because none of the other 839,000 class members claimed to
be the victim of identity theft.
Mr. Rindner asserted that a thief might have gotten his identity
from the Horizon laptop and then obtained his wife's information
from other sources, according to Judge Cecchi. Mr. Rindner cited
Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v. Aichele, a Third Circuit
case from 2014, which recognized "room for concurrent causation in
the analysis of standing."
Judge Cecchi said Mr. Rindner's theory might support standing in
the abstract, but said the possibility that the fraudulent tax
return was related to the laptop theft was "remote." Furthermore,
his claim fails based on redressability, since Mr. Rindner
ultimately received his tax refund, she said.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, Joseph DePalma --
jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg in Newark,
Philip Tortoreti -- ptortoreti@wilentz.com -- of Wilentz, Goldman
& Spitzer in Woodbridge, and William Pinilis --
wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- of PinilisHalpern in
Morristown, did not return calls seeking comment on the ruling.
Philip Sellinger -- sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig
in Florham Park, representing Horizon, also did not return a call.
HUSCO INTERNATIONAL: Wis. Court Reversed Ruling in CBA Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice N. Patrick Crooks of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
reversed the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the case
of Mauricio Aguilar, Dave Hughes, Daniel Radmer, Byron Slagle,
Duaine Wagner, and Michael Vinsant, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-
Respondents, v. Husco International, Inc., Defendant-Third-Party
Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant-Petitioner, v. International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District No. 10,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, CASE NO.
2013AO265 (Wis.)
From 1983 through 2007, successive collective bargaining
agreements between Husco International, Inc. and District No. 10
of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers Union provided that meal breaks would be unpaid and last
20 minutes.
Following the discovery, in late 2006, that Department of
Workforce Development (DWD) Section 274.02 was in conflict with
the CBA provision, District 10 sent a letter to Husco asserting
that Husco was required to pay employees for the unpaid breaks
notwithstanding the CBA. Husco instead proposed that the Company
and District 10 jointly seek a waiver from DWD to resolve the
matter.
When the parties were unable to reach a resolution, Husco
unilaterally extended employee meal breaks to 30 minutes, ending
the practice of the shorter unpaid meal breaks on October 2, 2007.
District 10 filed a complaint with DWD on February 9, 2007. In a
July 16, 2007 letter, the DWD notified the union that the DWD
would not seek back pay since the breaks had posed no health or
safety concerns, the statute permits waivers in circumstances such
as these, and the employees had enjoyed other benefits in exchange
for the agreement to have the short unpaid meal periods.
The plaintiffs brought suit in state court but Husco successfully
removed the action to federal court on the grounds that
plaintiffs' claim required interpretation of the CBA and was thus
subject to Section 301 preemption. The district court ultimately
remanded the case to state court on its own motion, holding that,
contrary to Husco's contention, plaintiffs' claim was not a
Section 301 claim. Consistent with its ruling in a contemporaneous
case with virtually identical facts, the district court ruled that
there was no basis for federal jurisdiction.
Back in state court, in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, the
parties stipulated to having the case certified as a class action.
All parties stipulated that there were no material factual
disputes and the matter was appropriate for summary judgment. The
circuit court denied summary judgment motions from all parties on
the grounds that there existed material factual disputes requiring
credibility determinations. All parties sought interlocutory
review of the circuit court's order. On review, the court of
appeals held that the matter was ripe for summary judgment. It
reversed the circuit court's denial of summary judgment to the
employees and granted summary judgment to the employees on the
wage claim on the grounds that absent a waiver from the DWD, Husco
cannot circumvent its statutory obligation to compensate the
employees for breaks under 30 minutes. It held that Husco's third-
party claim against District 10 had to be dismissed given that it
depended substantially on interpretation of the CBA and was
therefore preempted by Section 301. The parties petition the
matter before the High Court.
Justice Crooks reversed the court of appeals ruling and remanded
the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of Husco.
A copy of Justice Crooks's judgment dated April 1, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/LtAxcp from Leagle.com
For the defendant-third-party plaintiff-respondent-cross-
appellant-petitioner, represented by John C. Schaak -- Jeffrey
Morris -- jeffrey.morris@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady LLP,
Milwaukee
For the plaintiffs-appellants-cross-respondents and third-party
defendant-appellant-cross-respondent, represented by:
Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
Frederick Perillo, Esq.
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Telephone: 414-875-3955
Facsimile: 414-271-6308
ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Prisoner Sexual Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
ProgressIllinois.com reports that a lawsuit filed in federal court
on March 19 alleges that members of an Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC) guard unit sexually and physically abused
prisoners at four state facilities last year.
The suit alleges that at least 232 members of the unit, known as
'Orange Crush', "beat, sexually humiliated, and otherwise abused
[hundreds of prisoners]," and "gratuitously inflicted punishment
for the sole purpose of causing humiliation and needless pain,"
according to a release from the Uptown People's Law Center.
The four facilities in which the alleged abuse took place are the
Illinois River Correctional Center, Menard Correctional Center,
Big Muddy River Correctional Center, and Lawrence Correctional
Center.
Strip searches in front of female officers, physical abuse, forced
sexual contact among prisoners and "orders to stand in a stress
position for several hours," are among the allegations lodged in
the lawsuit.
Loevy & Loevy Attorney At Law and the Uptown People's Law Center
Law are representing the plaintiffs in the case, which argues that
the alleged behavior by the guard unit violated several human
rights laws, including the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act.
INFINITE CARE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Rodriguez, La'quisha Harris, and Ashley White, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Infinite Care,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01824 (E.D. Pa., April 8, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide former employees
with at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination in
violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.
Infinite Care, Inc. owns and operates a home care facility at 6423
Rising Sun Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Ronald Miller, Esq.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
170 S. Independence Mall W, Suite 400 E
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3337
Telephone: (215) 922-5805
E-mail: mmiller@margolisedelstein.com
JACOBS TRADING: Recalls Actinolite Collectable Mineral Samplers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 1, 2015
Posting date: April 1, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52767
This recall involves asbestos collectable loose rock labelled as
"Actinolite.
Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program revealed this
product contains actinolite, a form of asbestos. Exposure to
asbestos and asbestos fibres presents a significant long term
health risk to exposed individuals when present in ambient air in
considerable concentration. A prolonged exposure to high
concentrations of airborne asbestos fibres has been linked to such
health problems as asbestosis (a scarring of the lungs), lung
cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the lining of the chest or
abdomen) and possibly gastrointestinal cancers.
Neither Health Canada nor Jacobs Trading has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product.
For more information on the risks and symptoms of asbestos
exposure, visit Health Risks of Asbestos.
Approximately 4 of the recalled loose minerals were distributed to
Jacobs Trading retail store. Only 1 unit has been reported to be
sold to a consumer.
The recalled loose minerals were distributed and sold from January
2015 to February 2015.
UNKNOWN (The recalled Actinolite was purchased from a hobbyist who
had a small mineral collection from Manitoba. Establishment does
not have the supplier's contact information.)
Retailer: Jacobs Trading Ye Olde Rock Shop
Beausejour
Manitoba
CANADA
Consumers should immediately dispose of the recalled product in
accordance with local municipal hazardous waste requirements or
contact Jacobs Trading at 1-204-268-1856 for more information.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/A70ydi
JP MORGAN: Faces "Fried" Suit Over Illegal Collection of PMI Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ginnine Fried, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
d/b/a Chase, Case No. 2:15-cv-02512 (D.N.J., April 8, 2015),
arises out of Defendants' deceptive and/or unconscionable business
practices in connection with the collection and assessment of
Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) on residential mortgage
transactions or loans which have been modified. Specifically by,
misrepresenting to borrowers the amount of time it can continue
charge PMI on modified mortgage loans and by deceiving o pay for
unnecessary home valuations such as appraisals or broker price
opinions (BPOs) if they wish to stop paying PMI sooner.
JP Morgan Chase & Co. is a New York corporation that provides
investment banking, financial services for consumers and
businesses, financial transaction processing, asset and wealth
management and private equity services.
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a wholly owned subsidiary of JP
Morgan Chase & Co. that handles the U.S. consumer and commercial
banking businesses.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
KALMAR: Recalls 2014 & 2015 Ottawa Models Due to Safety Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 14
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015146TC
ID number: 2015146
Manufacturer recall number:SB15TI0045
On certain vehicles, movement of the primary battery ground cable
could be restricted. This could cause the eyelet on the cable to
fail due to fatigue. If this were to happen, the engine crank
circuit could find an alternative path to ground through the
engine harness. The ground wire in the harness would not be able
to carry the amperage associated with the cranking circuit, and
the insulation on the engine harness ground wire could melt, which
could result in a fire causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will replace and reroute the battery ground
cable.
Make Model Model year(s) affected
---- ----- ----------------------
KALMAR OTTAWA 2014, 2015
KNIGHT INDUSTRIES: 3rd Circuit Reinstates Defective Design Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reinstated a
defective design claim based on the state Supreme Court's ruling
last year in Tincher v. Omega Flex.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
had tossed the case DeJesus v. Knight Industries & Associates in
2013 based on its application of the Restatement (Third) of Torts.
However, in November 2014, the state Supreme Court declined to
adopt the Third Restatement, and held that Pennsylvania courts
should continue to follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit on April 6 reversed the
district court's decision and reinstated the case based on the
application of the Second Restatement.
"Because the law as decided by the highest court of the state has
changed while the case was on appeal, and because [Harold] DeJesus
preserved his rights with respect to the issues that have since
been resolved in Tincher, we will vacate the district court's
grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further
proceedings in light of Tincher," Judge Jane R. Roth said in a
three-page opinion.
According to U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin's July 2013
opinion, plaintiff Harold DeJesus, who worked at a Harley-Davidson
factory, was injured when a lift table that Knight Industries &
Associates manufactured knocked a rack of motorcycle chains onto
his leg.
Mr. DeJesus and his wife sued the manufacturer, alleging that the
lift table had been defectively designed and that the defendant
was negligent. The plaintiff specifically contended the lift
failed to have an audio and visual warning system to alert those
nearby when the lift was in use.
Judge McLaughlin noted that warning stickers had been affixed to
the lift table, and the lift table's manual warned that, before
operating the lift, the operator should alert those nearby.
Knight Industries made a motion to exclude one of Mr. DeJesus'
liability experts, and filed for summary judgment on the
negligence and strict liability claims.
Ruling consistently with the Third Circuit's 2011 holding in
Covell v. Bell Sports, which had affirmed the application of the
Third Restatement, McLaughlin analyzed the case using the Third
Restatement and granted Knight Industries' motions.
According to Judge McLaughlin, Mr. DeJesus had noted that a
competitor of Knight Industries offered a lift table with audio
and visual warnings if requested, and argued that the defendant
should have included the warning systems. Failure to do so meant
that the table was not reasonably safe, Mr. DeJesus argued,
according to Judge McLaughlin.
Based on the factors outlined in the Third Restatement, including
the magnitude and probability of foreseeable risks and the nature
of consumer expectation regarding the product, Judge McLaughlin
said the plaintiff's argument conflated reasonableness and
feasibility.
"The plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that relates to the
Restatement (Third) factors," Judge McLaughlin said. "There is no
evidence that the risk of harm posed by the lift table as
currently designed is high. The record shows just the opposite --
Knight has sold between 8,000 and 10,000 lift tables, and has
never encountered this problem before."
Judge McLaughlin likewise found that Mr. DeJesus failed to provide
any evidence about whether the instructions were inadequate, or
whether consumers would expect lift tables to have audio or visual
warnings. Judge McLaughlin also said Mr. DeJesus' liability
expert did not speak to issues related to the Third Restatement.
Mr. DeJesus appealed the district court's ruling, and sought a
stay in the case until the state Supreme Court ruled on Tincher.
The stay had been denied.
In November 2014, the state Supreme Court ruled 4-2 against
adopting the Restatement (Third).
Adopting the Third Restatement would have allowed defendants to
introduce elements regarding the foreseeability of a product's
risks, and whether alternative, safer designs were available when
the product was manufactured.
The case arguably settled the long-standing issue of whether
Pennsylvania courts would adopt what some see as the more defense-
friendly Third Restatement, or continue using the Second
Restatement, which is thought to be more favorable to plaintiffs.
Tincher involves a couple who sued the flexible natural-gas piping
company Omega Flex because electricity from a lightning strike
burned a hole in the Omega Flex gas pipe installed at their home
and then allegedly caused the house to burn down. According to
court papers, the jury found in favor of the couple on a strict
liability claim, not a negligence claim.
The Third Restatement allows arguments on the foreseeability of a
product's risk and requires a plaintiff to establish that an
alternative, safer design was viable when the product was
manufactured, effectively opening the door for defendants to
insert issues of negligence into products liability litigation.
The Second Restatement focuses litigation on the characteristics
of the products, and does not allow a fact-finder to consider the
manufacturer's conduct, or the feasibility and practicality of an
alternative design.
The Third Circuit's opinion remanded the case, and asked the
district court to make a determination regarding the plaintiff's
proposed expert after the testimony is offered.
Mr. DeJesus' attorney, Peter M. Patton --
ppatton@galfandberger.com -- of Galfand Berger, said he was
"obviously pleased with the decision."
"The court made the correct decision," Mr. Patton said.
Anthony R. Sherr -- tsherr@mmsllp.com -- of Mayers, Mennies &
Sherr, who represented Knight Industries, did not return a call
seeking comment.
KOODO SUSHI: Faces "Gamero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Gamero, Norberto Mastranzo and Oscar Sanchez, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Koodo Sushi Corp.
d/b/a Koodo Sushi, Raymond Koo and Michelle Koo, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02697 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
in a week.
The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant located at 55
Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
LAWN WIZARD: Faces "Wigley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Wigley, and other similarly situated individuals v. Lawn
Wizard USA, Inc. and John Longo, Case No. 0:15-cv-60755 (S.D.
Fla., April 8, 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 landscape service company in
Broward County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
Court House Tower
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
LENOX ROOM: Facea "Guapi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lex Guapi and Francisco Olea, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Lenox Room Corp. d/b/a T Bar Steak & Lounge
and A. Tony Fortuna, Case No. 1:15-cv-02596 (S.D.N.Y., April 3,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for all hours work in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendants own and operate T Bar Steak & Lounge located at
1278 3rd Avenue, in Manhattan.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
233 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548
Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
LES HERBES: Recalls W.-W. Due to Safety Risk
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 1, 2015
Posting date: April 7, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-52817
Recall initiated following suspension of market authorization by
Health Canada. The oral use by self medicating of the ingredient
Dryopteris filix-mas in the natural health products should not be
authorized on the Canadian market due to unfavorable
risks:benefits ratio and the fact that a "safe" dosage of Male
fern cannot be determined.
Depth of distribution: Naturopaths, Independent distributors
Affected products: W.-W.
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80055739
Dosage form: Liquids
Strength: Artemisia vulgaris 2.61 mL (1 : 7 DHE: 372.86 mg)
Cucurbita pepo 4.18 mL (1.0 : 3.0 DHE: 1393.3 mg Dry)
Dryopteris filix-mas 2.15 mL (1.0 : 4.0 DHE: 537.5 mg
Dry)
Frangula purshiana 3.87 mL (1.0 : 5.0 DHE: 774 mg Dry)
Juglans nigra 2.18 mL (1 : 4 DHE: 545 mg)
Lot or serial number: 50233
41018
Recalling Firm: Les Herbes Pures J.B. Ltee
351-10e Sud Avenue
Sherbrooke
J1G 2R8
Quebec
CANADA
Marketing Authorization Holder: Les Herbes Pures J.B. Lt‚e
351-10e Sud Avenue
Sherbrooke
J1G 2R8
Quebec
CANADA
LEVY WORLD: Faces "Bekhalfi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Youness Bekhalfi, Driss El Mahjoubi, and Smail Elharrada,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Levy
World Limited Partnership d/b/a Fulton's Crab House, Case No.
6:15-cv-00573-GKS-TBS (M.D. Fla., April 9, 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 Fulton's Crab House restaurant
located in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.
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
LILYDALE: Recalls Oven Roasted Carved Chicken & Turkey Breast
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 1, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Lilydale
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
The food recall warning issued on March 25, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.
Lilydale is voluntarily recalling Lilydale brand Oven Roasted
Carved Chicken Breast and Oven Roasted Carved Turkey Breast from
the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.
Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.
This recall was triggered by CFIA inspection activities. The CFIA
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC
---------- ----------- ---- on product ---
----------
Lilydale Oven Roasted 400 g Best Before 0 65843 83104 4
Carved Chicken dates up to
Breast and including
2015 AL 28
Lilydale Oven Roasted 400 g Best Before 0 65843 83210 2
Carved Turkey dates up to
Breast and including
2015 AL 10
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/JhkgIk
LITTON LOAN: "Perryman" Case Dismissed With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
ruled on the parties' motions in the case MARGO PERRYMAN,
Plaintiff, v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 14-CV-02261-JST (N.D. Cal.)
Plaintiff Margo Perryman filed a proposed class action complaint
in May 2014 against the defendants. Concurrently with his
complaint is a nationwide class action relating to lender placed
insurance has been pending in the Southern District of Florida
before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. The litigation involves
claims against Ocwen, ASIC, and several other defendants.
Plaintiff is a member of the Lee class.
The court previously dismissed the claims brought against
Southwest Business Corporation, finding that judicially-noticed
documents demonstrated that Southwest was not an insurer of
plaintiff's property. The court granted Ocwen's motion to dismiss
several of plaintiff's claims, but denied Ocwen's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant or good faith and fair dealing, RICO violations, and
claims arising under the California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), Cal. Bus & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. The court also
denied ASIC's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for honest
services fraud and claim under the UCL. Plaintiff subsequently
filed her first amended complaint (FAC).
Plaintiff now alleges that around March 2014, Ocwen entered into
agreements with defendants Southwest and Altisource to implement a
new force-placed insurance program for Ocwen. Plaintiff alleges
that, after the expiration of Ocwen's force-planned arrangement
with Assurant in March 2014, Ocwen hired defendant Beltline to
negotiate and place a new force-placed insurance program for
Ocwen, with Southwest operating as Ocwen's managing general agent.
In this role, Southwest is responsible with managing Ocwen's
force-placed insurance program, such as negotiating premiums with
force-placed insurers, including ASIC, who continues to force-
place insurance on properties within Ocwen's portfolio. Ocwen
promises to give its force-placed insurance business to Southwest,
who then negotiates premiums, prepares policies, and handles
renewals and cancellations, for which it receives commissions from
insurers. Southwest then kicks back 15 percent of the premium on
these policies to Beltline, although Beltline provides little to
no services for those commissions.
Southwest argues that plaintiff's claim under California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus & Prof. Code Section 17200, et
seq. should be dismissed. Southwest asserts that plaintiff fails
to allege that Southwest has injured plaintiff within the meaning
of the UCL and that any alleged future injury is completely
avoidable.
Beltline moves to dismiss the FAC on largely the same grounds as
Southwest. The FAC states that Beltline was hired by Ocwen to
negotiate and place a new force-placed insurance program in March
2014. Beltline argues it therefore was not involved in the
institution of the policies challenged in the FAC, the latest of
which began in November 2013.
Ocwen and ASIC have both filed motions to stay pending approval of
the class action settlement in Lee. Prior to the preliminary
approval of the settlement in Lee, plaintiff acknowledged that it
would be inefficient to continue the litigation against Ocwen and
ASIC pending preliminary approval or disapproval of the proposed
settlement.
Judge Tigar granted defendants Southwest and Beltline's motions to
dismiss, but granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to add
additional factual support for the allegations contained therein
against these defendants. The Court hereby stays the litigation as
to defendants Ocwen and ASIC.
A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated February 26, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/G0YhLI- from Leagle.com.
Margo Perryman, Plaintiff, represented by Barry R. Himmelstein,
Himmelstein Law Network, Sheri L. Kelly, Law Office of Sheri L.
Kelly, Alexander Phillip Owings, Owings Law Firm, Angela Mann,
Wagoner Law Firm, P.A., Jack Wagoner, III, Wagoner Law Firm, P.A.,
Steven A. Owings, Owings Law Firm & T. Brent Walker, Walker Law
PLC
Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Defendant, represented by Jason
Jonathan Kim, Hunton & Williams LLP, Brian V. Otero, Hunton &
Williams LLP, Ryan Becker, Hunton & Williams LLP & Stephen R.
Blacklocks, Hunton & Williams LLP
Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason Jonathan
Kim, Hunton & Williams LLP,Brian V. Otero, Hunton & Williams LLP,
Ryan Becker, Hunton & Williams LLP & Stephen R. Blacklocks, Hunton
& Williams LLP
Southwest Business Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis
Justin Kelly, Dillingham & Murphy, LLP & J. Cross Creason, III,
Dillingham & Murphy, LLP
American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Frank G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Dawn B. Williams,
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Mark A. Neubauer, Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt LLP, Meredith M Moss, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt LLP &
William Glenn Merten, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.
Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A., Defendant, represented by
David Wesley Moon, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Benjamin Gary
Diehl, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Julia B. Strickland,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Beltline Road Insurance Agency, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David Wesley Moon, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Benjamin Gary
Diehl, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Julia B. Strickland,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
American Modern Home Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Stephen John Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, David W.
Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Joseph E. Ezzie, Baker
Hostetler LLP, Mark A Johnson, Baker Hostetler LLP & Rodger Lee
Eckelberry, Baker Hostetler LLP
LIVE NATION: D.N.J. Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Forst" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anne E. Thompson of the District of New Jersey
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case MARILYN FORST, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al.,
Defendants, CIV. NO. 14-2452 (DNJ)
The plaintiffs Marilyn Forst, Jodi Scrivanic, Marc Yenicag, and
Eli Beyda purchased tickets to popular musical concerts in New
Jersey that were promoted by Defendants. As promoters, Defendants
were responsible for ticket allocation, ticket sales, and the
distribution of tickets for the concerts.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the defendants
alleging a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
N.J.S.A. 56:8-1et seq. (CFA). More specifically, Plaintiffs claim
that Defendants violated N.J.S.A. 56:8-35.1, a provision within
the CFA that limits the proportion of event tickets that may be
withheld from sale to the general public to five percent.
Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of "all persons who
purchased tickets or who could not afford to purchase tickets to
the Concerts at a ticket price that is higher than the face value
of the ticket from a period beginning with the first day tickets
went on sale through the date of the concert. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint.
Judge Thompson granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Count I of
plaintiffs' first amended complaint is dismissed without
prejudice, while Count II is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs
were granted leave to further amend their Complaint if they are
able to correct the deficiencies.
A copy of Judge Thompson memorandum opinion dated February 27,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/zh1hKDfrom Leagle.com
Plaintiffs, represented by BRUCE HELLER NAGEL --
bnagel@nagelrice.com -- GREG MICHAEL KOHN -- gkohn@nagelrice.com
-- at NAGEL RICE, LLP
Defendants, represented by PHILIP R. SELLINGER --
sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- DAVID E. SELLINGER -- sellingerp@gtlaw.com
-- at GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
LUCKY DRAGON: "Arifatmi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bambang Arifatmi v. Lucky Dragon, LLC, d/b/a Geisha Sushi Bistro
and Xiufei Zhang, Case No. 2:15-cv-01101 (E.D. La., April 7,
2015), seeks to recover to recover unpaid minimum wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, pre-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON & JACKSON
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2500
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 599-5953
E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Strudgeon" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Strudgeon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-11312 -GAD-APP (E.D. Mich., April 8, 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:
Alyson L. Oliver, Esq.
OLIVER LAW GROUP P.C.
363 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 200
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 327-6556
Facsimile: (248) 436-3385
E-mail: notifications@oliverlg.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Margaret J. Pishko, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
scott@wbmllp.com
maggie@wbmllp.com
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Hall" Suit in Cal. Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01558 (N.D. Cal., April 6, 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:
Christopher B. Dalbey, Esq.
Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
Curt D. Marshall, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
E-mail: cdalbey@weitzlux.com
rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
cmarshall@weitzlux.com
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Raygoza" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Raygoza and Richard Martinez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02483 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 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:
Bradley C. Buhrow, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (480) 348-6400
Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
E-mail: Brad.Buhrow@zimmreed.com
- and -
Caleb Marker, Esq.
RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP
555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 216-7380
Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
E-mail: c.marker@rlollp.com
LUMBER LIQUIDATOR: Customers Request Formaldehyde Kits Amid Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WPRI reports that a number of Lumber Liquidator customers are
concerned about their flooring after a recent 60 Minutes report
accused the company of selling contaminated laminate flooring.
Now, thousands of customers have requested formaldehyde test kits
and Lumber Liquidators is offering free testing to any customer
who wants it -- even though the company says their flooring is
safe.
Noah Bennett is still waiting on air sample tests he ordered
inside his family's home. He says he is worried that the air
inside his home is tainted by the floors under his feet.
"As a consumer you try and go out and purchase stuff for your home
to make it beautiful, and you find out in the long run that it
could possibly be bad for you," he said.
Mr. Bennett says his family suffered breathing problems and other
illnesses shortly after he installed the floors.
After seeing the 60 Minutes investigation, he thinks the flooring
could be the cause of his family's recent health problems.
Mr. Bennett's lawyer has filed a federal class action lawsuit,
alleging negligence and fraud on the part of Lumber Liquidators.
"Right now we are still in the investigative stages. As for my
client, we don't believe that it's coincidence," Attorney Adam
Anderson said. "His illness was onset at the same time the
flooring was installed."
Mr. Bennett's lawsuit joins another case filed recently by
Rosie Oakes, who says Lumber Liquidator flooring in her home
caused nearly identical health problems for her family.
"I look at my box and I see this. I see the stock lot number. So I
know my floors have formaldehyde in them," she said.
Lumber Liquidators released a statement, saying in part:
"All of our resources are focused on ensuring our customer
understands the truth, our products are 100% safe and our testing
is thorough. Also, we are focused on maintaining the customers'
trust and addressing any concerns over our long purchase cycle.
We stand by every single plank of wood and laminate we sell all
around the country and will continue to deliver the best product
at the best price to our growing base of valued customers."
You can request a test kit here but you must have your order
number to see whether or not you are eligible."
"The test is a do-it-yourself kit that customers have to send back
to the lab. Results are available within 7 to 10 business days.
Consumers can call the Customer Care line at 1-800-366-4204 with
additional questions or comments."
MARCELLO TREBITSCH: Faces Fraud Charges Over $7MM Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a son-in-law of former New York
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was charged with defrauding
investors out of $7 million in a Ponzi scheme, according to a
federal complaint.
Marcello Trebitsch appeared in court in Manhattan on April 13 on
one count of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud. He was
released on bond. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison
and a $5 million fine.
He is married to Michelle Trebitsch, Silver's daughter. The former
Democrat powerbroker stepped down from his leadership position
after being indicted on corruption charges in January.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement that Marcello
Trebitsch, 37, of Brooklyn, told investors he would use their
money to trade in securities through his investment fund and
promised them double-digit returns with low risk. But only a
portion of the money was invested and Trebitsch used the remainder
for his own personal benefit and to repay other investors, the
complaint said.
Michelle Trebitsch, a certified public accountant, co-owns the
investment firm Allese Capital with her husband. She has not been
charged.
The investments took place between 2009 and 2014. The complaint
said Mr. Trebitsch suffered losses with the money he invested and
that he hid them from investors by sending them bogus account
statements and tax forms showing annual returns of 15 to 19
percent.
"Investing in securities entails certain risks, but should not
include the risk of being defrauded by one's investment manager,"
Mr. Bharara said in his statement.
Mr. Silver was arrested after prosecutors concluded he exploited
his influence to reap $4 million in kickbacks and payoffs over a
decade. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on bail. He said
he'll be vindicated.
MASTEC INC: Faces "Cordero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Sanchez Cordero, Luis G. Montanez, Alex A. Warner,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Mastec, Inc. and AT&T Digital Life, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00572-
GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., April 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
Mastec, Inc. is a specialty contractor that designs, builds,
installs, maintains, and upgrades critical communications,
utilities and infrastructure.
AT&T Digital Life, Inc. is engaged in the business of installing
home security systems and home automation systems.
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
MASTER KITCHEN: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Antonio Euceda Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Master Kitchen & Bath, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-01919 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours a week.
Master Kitchen & Bath, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns
and operates a furniture store located at 228 Front St.,
Hempstead, NY 11550.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
JTB LAW GROUP LLC
155 2nd St, Suite 4
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
MATO RESTAURANT: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier H. Martinez, Cortez Ramirez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mato Restaurant Corp., et al.,
Docket No. 2:15-cv-01932 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2701
Merrick Road, Bellmore, NY 11710.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
Bohemia, NY 11716
Telephone: (631) 589-7242
Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com
MESE FISH: Faces "Leger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Princeton Leger, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants v.
M.E.S.E. Fish Grill Inc. d/b/a M.E.S.E Fish City Grill Inc. and
Cabo Grill Houston, and Miguel Cruz, Case No. 4:15-cv-00917 (S.D.
Tex., April 8, 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 in Houston, Harris
County, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Wilson Reed, Esq.
G. Scott Fiddler,Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF G SCOTT FIDDLER PC
1004 Congress, Ste 200
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 228-0070
Facsimile: (713) 228-0078
E-mail: areed@fiddlerlaw.com
scott@fiddlerlaw.com
MINORITY MOBILE: "Bui" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quoc Khanh Bui, individually, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Minority Mobile System, Inc.,
ITransport Services, Inc., Aleida Cobo, and Joanne R. Urquiola,
Case No. 1:15-cv-21317 (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.
The Defendants own and operate a Mobile home Center located at 708
S Dixie Hwy, Coral Gables, FL 33146, United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc Alan Silverman, Esq.
FRANK WEINBERG & BLACK
7805 SW 6th Court
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 474-8000
Facsimile: 474-9850
E-mail: msilverman@fwblaw.net
MJM RESTAURANT: Faces "Wyler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Wyler, Arturo Gomez, and Yesenia Perez, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. M.J.M.
Restaurant Corp. d/b/a The Thirsty Fan, CalShea Rest. Corp. d/b/a
The Triple Crown, and Martin O'Shea, Case No. 1:15-cv-02627
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 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 restaurants with various locations
in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
SAMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
Facsimile: (212) 563-9870
E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com
NATIONAL RECOVERIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Wright, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. National Recoveries Inc., John Does 1-100, and Any Other
Unknown Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-60747-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 8,
2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of
initiating non-emergency telephone calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system to cellular telephone numbers without the
prior express consent of the subscribers.
National Recoveries Inc. is a collection agency headquartered in
Ham Lake, Minnesota.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
Ross A. Appel, Esq.
SALAS WANG LLC
2131 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 408
Hollywood, FL 33020
Telephone: (954) 842-2021
Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
E-mail: eck@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
NATIVE OILFIELD: Faces "Ahoyt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Ahoyt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Native Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00262
(W.D. Tex., April 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours a week.
Native Oilfield Services, LLC is a Texas corporation that provides
logistical support to pressure pumping companies in the oil and
gas industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
1150 Bissonnet
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
NATURE'S ARTIFACTS: Recalls Chrysotile Stones Due to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 8, 2015
Posting date: April 8, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-52805
This recall involves chrysotile stones sold individually and in
packs of 10.
Chrysotile is a type of mineral that contains asbestos. The
chrysotile stones were sold in individually labelled boxes and as
loose bulk rocks. The stones can be identified by their greenish
colour and the appearance of white lines or streaks.
The following products are included in this recall:
Item Number Description UPC
----------- ----------- ---
BCHR Pack of 10 6 16641 34421 4
BWF Individual Stone 6 16641 34484 9
Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program revealed this
product contains chrysotile, a form of asbestos. Exposure to
asbestos and asbestos fibres presents a significant long term
health risk to exposed individuals when present in ambient air in
considerable concentration. A prolonged exposure to high
concentrations of airborne asbestos fibres has been linked to such
health problems as asbestosis (a scarring of the lungs), lung
cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the lining of the chest or
abdomen) and possibly gastrointestinal cancers.
Neither Health Canada nor Nature's Artifacts has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.
For more information on the risks and symptoms of asbestos
exposure, visit Health Risks of Asbestos.
Approximately 93 products were sold at various retailers across
Canada.
The recalled products were sold from January 2013 to March 2015.
Manufactured in Brazil.
Manufacturer: Bagatini Pedrad Ltda
Soledade
BRAZIL
Importer: Nature's Artifacts
Mississauga
Ontario
CANADA
Consumers should immediately dispose of the recalled in product in
accordance with local municipal hazardous waste requirements.
For additional information, consumers may contact Nature's
Artifacts at 1-888-895-3017 or visit Nature's Artifacts website.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/fUrhdD
NEGRIL VILLAGE: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Flores, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. Negril Village Inc. d/b/a Negril Village, Marva
Layne, Carlton Ha Yle, Peter Best, and Sim Walker, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02658 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid spread of hours pay, liquidated damages and
statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
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: anne@leelitigation.com
cklee@leelitigation.com
NEW JERSEY: Supreme Court to Hear Pension Fund Ruling Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the New Jersey Supreme Court said April 6 it would take a direct
appeal from a trial judge's order mandating that Republican
Gov. Chris Christie work with the Democrat-controlled Legislature
to find a way to restore the $1.57 billion in pension funds
payments that Christie diverted to balance the state's 2015 fiscal
year budget.
In an order, the court granted the administration's request for
direct certification of its appeal of Mercer County Assignment
Judge Mary Jacobson's Feb. 23 ruling, meaning that the case will
bypass the Appellate Division.
The high court said it will hear oral arguments on May 6.
The plaintiffs in the case must submit their brief by April 20,
and the administration must reply by April 24, the order said.
"This was expected," said the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Steven
Weissman of Weissman & Mintz in Somerset. "We knew this was going
to end up before the Supreme Court."
Spokespersons for Christie and Acting Attorney General John
Hoffman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In her ruling in the case, Burgos v. New Jersey, Jacobson said the
administration violated the contractual rights of hundreds of
thousands of current and retired public sector workers by line-
item vetoing the scheduled pension payment out of the budget.
Judge Jacobson said Mr. Christie's decision "constitutes a facial
violation of the funding requirements of the public pension
statute," more commonly known as Chapter 78.
Judge Jacobson denied the state's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
and granted the request from unions representing public-sector
workers for relief by June 30.
Mr. Weissman said one key question the Supreme Court will have to
decide is whether Chapter 78 created a binding contract that
Christie was bound to honor.
At the time, a spokesman for Christie, Michael Drewniak, decried
Judge Jacobson's ruling.
"Once again liberal judicial activism rears its head with the
court trying to replace its own judgment for the judgment of the
people who were elected to make these decisions," Mr. Drewniak
said. "The governor will continue to work on a practical solution
to New Jersey's pension and health benefits problems while he
appeals this decision to a higher court where we are confident the
judgment of New Jersey's elected officials will be vindicated."
Mr. Christie again addressed the state's financially troubled
pension plans in February when he announced his proposed $33.8
billion budget for fiscal 2016. He urged legislators to work with
him to reform the pension system.
The state's retirement systems currently face about $83 billion in
unfunded mandates.
"The numbers do not lie, and we don't need any court to tell us we
have a serious problem," Mr. Christie said in his speech. He
pledged to make a $1.3 billion contribution this year.
Mr. Christie, who is nearing a decision as to whether to seek his
party's nomination for president next year, has adamantly refused
to consider raising any taxes and continued to insist in his
speech that he would not sign onto any tax increases.
Chapter 78, enacted in 2011, was hailed as a bi-partisan effort
between Mr. Christie and the Legislature aimed at reforming the
pension system for current and retired public-sector workers.
Mr. Christie promised to fully fund pension obligations in return
for public employees agreeing to increased contributions and lower
cost-of-living raises.
During oral arguments in January, Assistant Attorney General Jean
Reilly said Judge Jacobson should dismiss the unions' lawsuit
because Mr. Christie acted within his authority when he made the
decision to line-item veto the funds out of the fiscal 2015
budget.
Funding decisions, Mr. Reilly said, are governed by the debt
limitations clause and the appropriations clause of the state
constitution.
But Judge Jacobson said Chapter 78 created a contract between the
government and the pension funds, which means that the contracts
clause of the U.S. Constitution also must be considered. Jacobson
noted that options, such as tax increases, were available that
could have shored up the state's finances.
In her ruling, Judge Jacobson said Mr. Christie had done an
"apparent about face" regarding his position on the accomplishment
of passing Chapter 78, adding that he initially described it as an
"historic effort" and his "biggest governmental victory."
Judge Jacobson said the clear intent of Chapter 78 was to
"insulate the state contributions into the pension funds from the
vicissitudes of the political process that had placed the
integrity of the funds in significant jeopardy in the past."
Mr. Christie is facing a second lawsuit, filed in December by the
boards of trustees for three of the public sector pension funds,
over his decision to strip $2.4 billion out of the 2014 fiscal
year budget to once again solve a revenue shortfall.
The plaintiff in Burgos, Christopher Burgos, is the president of
the New Jersey State Troopers Fraternal Organization.
NISSAN NORTH: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Defective Altima Floorboards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Grimm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01571
(N.D. Cal., April 6, 2015), alleges that the Defendant refused to
institute a recall or compensate Altima owners for the serious
defect of the vehicles' floorboards that are prone to rust at
significantly higher rates than other vehicles.
Nissan North America, Inc. is a California corporation that
manufactures and distributes automobiles throughout the United
States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
550 West C Street, Suite 1750
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Todd E. Hilton, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 876-2600
Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
dirks@williamsdirks.com
- and -
Tim Dollar, Esq.
J.J. Burns, Esq.
DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 876-2600
Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com
jjb@dollar-law.com
NOVARTIS CORP: Faces Contact Lens Price-Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a putative class action suit filed in federal court in Newark
accuses four manufacturers and a distributor of disposable contact
lenses of conspiring to eliminate price competition by entering
into illegal resale price maintenance agreements with retailers.
The manufacturers -- Novartis Corp., Johnson & Johnson, Bausch &
Lomb and CooperVision Inc. -- entered into agreements with stores
in which they threatened to cut off product supplies if retail
prices were not maintained above mandated levels, the suit claims.
The distributor, ABB/Concise Optical Group, orchestrated such
agreements between manufacturers and retailers in order to
increase the retail price of lenses, the suit alleges.
ABB/Concise, the nation's largest distributor of contact lenses,
services more than two-thirds of vision care providers, and it
promoted those deals as a means to increase profits for the
providers, the suit claims.
Eye care professionals both prescribe and sell contact lenses, but
they tend to charge far more for contact lenses than big-box
stores, warehouse clubs and online retailers, the suit claims.
"ECPs [eye care professionals] have the power and the economic
incentive to prescribe lenses that provide them the largest profit
margins. Contact lens manufacturers understand these incentives
all too well. ECPs will refuse to prescribe a manufacturer's
lenses if their profit margins are undercut by more efficient
retailers," the suit says. "As a result, contact lens
manufacturers have always done what they can to insulate ECPs from
price competition. The economic purpose of the UPPs [universal
pricing policies] is to insulate ECPs from price competition."
The suit brings counts for per se violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act for horizontal price-fixing, for rule of reason
violation of the act for resale price maintenance, for violation
of the New Jersey Antitrust Act for horizontal price-fixing and
resale price maintenance and for unjust enrichment and violation
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
The defendants also include Alcon Laboratories Inc,. a Novartis
subsidiary; Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc.; and Valeant
Pharmaceuticals, a Bausch & Lomb subsidiary.
Alcon was the first of the parties to enact a UPP, in June 2013,
and has established such agreements for four of its contact lens
product lines, the suit alleges. Bausch & Lomb enacted a UPP on
one of its product lines in February 2014, and Johnson & Johnson
took a similar step with regard to at least eight of its product
lines in June 2014, the suit claims. CooperVision did the same in
September 2014 with respect to one of its product lines, the suit
alleges.
After Johnson & Johnson enacted its UPPs, prices for its contact
lenses increased at rates ranging from 73 percent to 198 percent,
according to the suit. The manufacturer defendants have enforced
the UPPs through actual retaliation, as well as threats, warnings
and other communications to ensure compliance, the suit alleges.
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights held a hearing in July 2014
on UPPs in the contact lens industry, the suit says. Testimony at
the hearing said UPPs cover 40 percent of the domestic contact
lens market and would extend their reach to 80 percent of the
market by the end of 2015, according to the suit. The same
defendants have been hit with similar suits in California and
Florida, and legislation is pending in New York and Oregon to
outlaw UPPs.
Laurie Little, a spokeswoman for Valeant and Bausch & Lomb, said
those companies "will be defending our practices in these lawsuits
and oppose the pending state bills as they seek to make an
exception to established antitrust principles for one industry."
Representatives for the other defendants did not respond to
requests for comment about the suit. The lawyer for the class,
Michael Criden -- mcriden@cridenlove.com -- of Criden & Love in
South Miami, Florida, also did not return a call.
NVIDIA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Graphics Processing Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a California technology company is
being sued over allegations it lied to consumers about the amount
of memory one of its graphics and video cards contained.
Stephen Lowe filed the lawsuit on March 9 against Nvidia
Corporation claiming its advertisements for the GeForce GTX 970
graphics processing unit were misleading in terms of the amount of
storage memory on the product.
Nvidia claimed the GTX 970 had a 4 gigabyte "pool of video random
access memory 64 raster operations pipelines and 2048 kilobytes of
L2 cache capacity" the lawsuit said. However, the product was
actually split in two separate pools of memory. The first "high
performance" pool contained about 3.5 gigabytes of memory, and "a
second nearly unusable pool" had about 0.5 gigabytes of memory,
the suit says. The two-pool system was misleading and deceiving
to consumers, the lawsuit said.
According to the lawsuit about 10,000 people have signed a
petition seeking refunds from Nvidia over the storage capacity of
the GTX 970. The lawsuit seeks class status for all those that
purchased the GTX 970, and asks for damages of more than $5
million plus court costs.
Mr. Lowe is represented by Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com --
Esfand Y. Nafisi and Benjamin S. Branda -- bbranda@wbmllp.com --
of Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLLP in Washington, D.C., and Charles
J. LaDuca and Brendan S. Thompson -- brendant@cuneolaw.com -- of
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, in Bethesda, Md.
United States District Court for the District of Maryland-
Baltimore Division case number 1:15-cv-00660.
PERMIAN EQUIPMENT: Faces "Posey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Posey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Permian Equipment Rentals, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00044
(W.D. Tex., April 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Permian Equipment Rentals, LLC is a Texas corporation that
provides equipment and services to customers in the oil and gas
industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremi K. Young, Eq.
THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
Amarillo, TX 79101
Telephone: (806) 331-1800
Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
PHARMACARE US: Falsely Marketed Drug Products, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
John Sandoval, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PharmaCare US, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00738 (S.D.
Cal., April 3, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's misleading
advertising campaign that claims to increase Sexual Power &
Performance and suggests to consumers that it is effective as an
aphrodisiac drug product, however, none of the ingredients in
IntenseX, individually or in combination, increase male strength
and performance or are effective as an aphrodisiac.
PharmaCare US, Inc. is a California corporation that manufactures,
distributes, and markets of a variety of natural health products
and supplements.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
THE WESTON FIRM
1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 798-2006
Facsimile: (480) 247-4553
E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
paul@westonfirm.com
PMR PROGRESSIVE: Illegally Recover Telephone Calls, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lizet Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PMR Progressive, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02623 (C.D.
Cal., April 8, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful
practice of recording telephone conversations without consent.
PMR Progressive, LLC is in the business of debt collection.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Matthew M. Loker, 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
ml@kazlg.com
- and -
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
POTAMITISA CORP: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Suarez Torres and Angel Suarez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Potamitisa Corp. (d/b/a
Nick's Garden Coffee Shop), Antonios Sophilas and Mary Sophilas,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02695 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for
work in excess of 40 hours in a week.
The Defendants own and operate a Diner located at 2953 Webster
Avenue, Bronx, New York 10458.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Powers" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Powers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situatedm v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00558 (W.D.
Wash., April 9, 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:
R. Glenn Phillips, Esq.
PHILLIPS LAW FIRM PLLC
17410 133rd Ave NE, Suite 301
Woodinville WA 98072
Telephone: (425) 482-1111
Facsimile: (425) 482-6653
E-mail: glenn@justiceforyou.com
- and -
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
ehg@girardgibbs.com
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Purcell" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darin Purcell, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 3:15-cv-00572
(D. Or., April 7, 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:
Anthony L. Rafel, Esq.
RAFEL MANVILLE PLLC
999 Third Avenue, Suite 1600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 838-2660
Facsimile: (206) 838-2661
E-mail: arafel@rafellawgroup.com
- and -
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
1016 Palm Ave. West
Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Webb" Suit in Wash. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria S. Webb and her minor daughter, Shana M. Guthrie and her
minor son, and Mark D. Flaten, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00539 (W.D. Wash., April 6, 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:
Cliff Cantor, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
627 208th Ave. SE
Sammamish, WA 98074
Telephone: (425) 868-7813
Facsimile: (425) 732-3752
E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com
- and -
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP
1101 Market St., Suite 2650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
ktucker@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
Andrew J. Sciola, Esq.
POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC
161 Washington St., Suite 1520
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 941-4204
Facsimile: (610) 941-4248
E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com
PREMIER DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Pay Employee Overtime, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Langston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P. and E-
Employers Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00882 (S.D. Tex.,
April 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act.
The Defendants own and operate a directional drilling company in
Texas.
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
QUALITY EGG: Execs Get Jail Sentences for Salmonella Outbreak Role
------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Funk, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
former egg industry executives received jail sentences on April 13
for their roles in a major 2010 salmonella outbreak, representing
the latest high-profile victory for government officials hoping to
emphasize food safety.
The three-month sentences handed down in federal court are
noteworthy because only a handful of cases of corporate misconduct
end with executives behind bars. The extent of harm caused by the
outbreak and the pattern of problems led to the decision for jail
time.
Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son, Peter DeCoster, each faced up
to a year in jail on misdemeanor charges for shipping adulterated
food. They will remain free while appealing their sentences.
"There's a litany of shameful conduct, in my view, that happened
under their watch," U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett said.
Prosecutors said the jail sentences send a strong message about
the importance of following food safety rules.
"A sentence of imprisonment is a fairly significant sentence in a
case like this," said Peter Deegan, the assistant U.S. attorney
who prosecuted the case.
In the past 18 months, two Colorado cantaloupe farmers were
convicted and received probation in a deadly 2011 listeria
outbreak, and the former owner of Peanut Corporation of America
was convicted in a 2008 salmonella outbreak. The peanut
executive, Stewart Parnell, also could face jail time when
sentenced.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention linked 1,939
illnesses to the outbreak, but officials estimate that up to
56,000 people may have been sickened. Investigators argue that
the DeCosters knew their Iowa egg facilities were at risk for
salmonella contamination before the outbreak.
The elder Mr. DeCoster, 80, of Turner, Maine, and his 51-year-old
son, who lives in Clarion, Iowa, both pleaded guilty last year to
introducing adulterated eggs into interstate commerce.
"I wouldn't be surprised if the judge didn't sentence them to
jail, but I'd be disappointed," food safety lawyer Bill Marler,
whose firm represented more than 100 people sickened in the
outbreak, said ahead of sentencing.
The DeCosters' Quality Egg company paid a $6.8 million fine as
part of a plea agreement, and the DeCosters each paid $100,000.
Quality Egg has admitted that workers knowingly shipped eggs with
false processing and expiration dates to fool state regulators and
retail customers about their age and bribed a U.S. Department of
Agriculture inspector at least twice to approve sales of poor-
quality eggs. It's unclear when or how the DeCosters learned
about the bribes, but prosecutors said that shows their disregard
for food safety regulations.
Both Jack and Peter DeCoster said they were sorry about the harm
their products caused, but they still generally defended their
food safety efforts.
Jack DeCoster told the judge that he prayed for the victims of the
outbreak to recover, but he wasn't worried about his court
sentence.
"God is the one I'm worried about," Jack DeCoster said. "You can
throw me in jail, your honor. That's all you can do to me. I've
got to meet up with God one day."
Even if the DeCosters hadn't received jail sentences, Mr. Marler
said he believes the case along with several other high-profile
prosecutions in food cases has made an impression on food
producers he meets at conferences or in courtrooms.
QUORN FOODS: Faces Suits in Connecticut Over Product Packaging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that when vegetarians and other diet-conscious
eaters go to the supermarket in search of healthy alternatives to
meat, the optimal word is healthy. For more than a decade, a
British company with U.S. headquarters in Connecticut has tried to
tap into that market with meatless dinner entrees.
Quorn Foods Inc. has seen worldwide sales surge in recent years,
to about $250 million a year. In a recent interview published on
a British business website, Chief Executive Officer Keith Brennan
said his products appeal to not only vegetarians, but to "meat
reducers," people who want to cut down on their meat intake for
health reasons and also consume environmentally sustainable
products.
"The market is starting to take off, whether you look at Asia,
Europe or America," said Mr. Brennan. His simple explanation for
the growth: Quorn products taste good. "We've tested ourselves
against other products, such as chicken nuggets, and we beat them
in certain cases," he said.
But there's another story. Since the company began marketing
entrees with names like the "Quorn Turk'y Burger" or "Quorn Chik'n
Patties" for U.S. consumers in 2002, a number of lawsuits have
called into question whether Quorn's use of a protein called
mycoprotein -- "a member of the fungi/mold family," according to
the company's packaging -- is even safe for human consumption.
On March 24, two Los Angeles-based plaintiffs law firms filed a
wrongful death lawsuit against Quorn, seeking $25 million in
damages. The lawsuit claims the company and a health food store
that sold its products negligently caused the death of an
11-year-old boy. The lawsuit is at least the fifth to be filed
against the company over the safety of its products, including two
in Connecticut. So far, Quorn has won every court battle.
Back in 2005, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, based
in Washington, D.C., responded to more than 2,000 complaints from
people who claimed to have been sickened by Quorn products. The
nonprofit group, which has criticized a number of popular foods
for being unhealthy, filed a lawsuit in Texas seeking to have an
allergy warning label placed on all Quorn products. The lawsuit
filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs claimed the products caused
people to suffer "severe allergic reactions, including violent
vomiting, diarrhea and stomach cramps."
Soon after the Texas lawsuit was dismissed, two similar lawsuits
were filed in Connecticut in 2009 by the CSPI on behalf of
consumers, one in federal court and the other in Superior Court.
Both said that Quorn product packaging failed to alert consumers
of health hazards and thus, the products should be pulled from
store shelves in the state. The plaintiff in the state lawsuit
was Kathy Cardinale, a Massachusetts woman who said she became
violently ill on three occasions after eating Quorn products. In
her complaint, she said she would not have eaten the products had
they contained a warning label.
The lawsuit acknowledged that "some people can consume Quorn
products safely," but others have "dangerous allergic reactions."
The claim added that "it is typically difficult to identify the
cause of an allergic reaction. Many consumers become sick several
times before linking Quorn to the reaction." It also stated that
"medical studies have proven that Quorn's processed fungal
ingredient is an allergen."
The plaintiffs offered this observation about Quorn's ingredients:
"Quorn markets its products as being similar to mushrooms,
truffles and morels. In fact, although also a member of the
fungus family, Quorn is not made from a normal edible mushroom or
fungus, but from a soil mold called Fusarium venenatum (the word
derives from the Latin word venemous). Thus, Quorn markets its
products in a deceptive manner, in addition to its failure to
disclose the allergenicity of its products."
Both Connecticut lawsuits were eventually dismissed by judges, who
deferred to the Food and Drug Administration, according to Stephen
Gardner, a lawyer from Texas who worked with the plaintiffs on the
Connecticut cases, along with Daniel Blinn, of the Consumer Law
Group in Rocky Hill. "We were trying to force them to put a good
warning on the box, and to let the public know there was a risk,"
said Gardner, who for a time was litigation director of the CSPI.
"We were trying to get the product declared a danger."
He said several organizations, including the CSPI, had petitioned
the FDA to not allow Quorn to sell its product in the United
States when the company first expanded out of the United Kingdom.
That was in 1997, and "the FDA didn't do anything to stop them,"
Gardner said.
As part of its defense in the Connecticut lawsuits, Quorn
presented a 2002 letter from the FDA in which the agency cited
studies showing that "mycoprotein is well-tolerated" in humans.
Any adverse affects are "primarily gastrointestinal in nature,"
those reports say.
According to the most recent complaint filed in California
Superior Court in Los Angeles, 11-year-old Miles Bengco suffered
"a severe anaphylactic reaction to the mycoprotein in a Quorn
Turk'y Burger" in 2013.
Bengco's mother claimed her son was allergic to mold, and that he
also had asthma, so she read the ingredients on the box before
feeding him. She said the packaging did not indicate that the key
ingredient was a type of mold. After eating the burger, her son
had trouble breathing. He was taken to a hospital near his home in
Long Beach, but later died from the allergic reaction.
Quorn did not respond to numerous messages seeking comment for
this article. Lawyers in the Hartford office of McCarter &
English, which represented Quorn in its Connecticut lawsuits, also
did make themselves available for comment.
But according to a statement recently provided to the Washington
Post, the company claims its products' safety "has been validated
by the world's most stringent food safety regulators. These
include, among others, the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the UK Food Standards Agency. And since
1985, over three billion meals have been sold -- with no
associated fatalities whatsoever . . .
"We sympathize with the Bengco family and the tragic loss that
they have endured, but their attempt to ameliorate this tragedy by
way of a lawsuit against Quorn Foods is misguided," the statement
said in its conclusion. "We will, vigorously defend our company,
and the safety of our products, against these allegations."
Mr. Gardner said the litigation involving Quorn reminds him of the
lawsuits targeting the herbal stimulant ephedra, which was tied to
deaths about 15 years ago. "It took an athlete dying before the
FDA did anything about it, and it's going to take more people
dying perhaps before they do anything about this," Gardner said.
"But that's not the way it's supposed to work."
Meanwhile, Quorn CEO Brennan has not mentioned the litigation in
recent interviews with the British press. He did, however, note
that sales had grown 8 percent in January. "We've seen sales grow
by 20 percent over the last two years," he said, "and we expect to
sustain this momentum as people continue to rethink their meat-
eating habits and explore healthy and sustainable protein
alternatives such as Quorn."
RALEY'S FAMILY: Pregnant Workers File Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that two weeks after
the Supreme Court upheld a pregnant employee's discrimination
claims, a proposed class of California workers has filed nearly
identical accusations against a local grocery chain.
Plaintiffs in the California case say Raley's Family of Fine
Stores, which operates 115 in-state grocery stores including Food
Source and Nob Hill Foods, forced them out of work because they
were pregnant. The company had a policy of giving lighter work to
employees who were injured on the job, but refused to extend those
accommodations to pregnant workers, according to the complaint
filed on April 9 in Sacramento Superior Court. When named
plaintiffs' pregnancies required them to limit their heavy lifting
and physical activity, they say their managers forced them to go
on unpaid leave or lose their jobs.
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed that very issue last month in the
case of Peggy Young, a UPS driver who says she was forced to take
unpaid leave from work while pregnant. Ms. Young claims she is
entitled to the same accommodations UPS provided to workers who
were injured on the job, had disabilities covered by the Americans
with Disabilities Act, or had lost their Department of
Transportation certifications.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted UPS summary
judgment, agreeing with the lower court that Ms. Young's situation
wasn't comparable to the situations of workers in those protected
groups. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling UPS must afford
pregnant women the same accommodations as other employees with
similar work limitations.
Jennifer Liu, a San Francisco solo who represents plaintiffs in
the case against Raley's, said the Supreme Court ruling helped
clarify an employer's obligation to pregnant workers under federal
anti-discrimination laws.
"An employer can't simply claim that it's too expensive to extend
the same accommodations to pregnant women," she said.
But California law has been clear about that requirement all
along.
"Even without Young v. UPS," Ms. Liu said, "Raley's policy on its
face violates California law."
Plaintiffs also are represented by Jahan Sagafi of Outten & Golden
and Equal Rights Advocates.
RED BULL: Falsely Marketed Energy Drink Products, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rosado Acha, individually on his own behalf and others
similarly situated v. Red Bull GMBH, Red Bull North America, Inc.,
and Red Bull Distribution Company, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01367
(D.P.R., April 8, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practices
of disseminating false and misleading information via television
commercials, Internet websites and postings, blast emails, radio
media, blogs, video news releases, advertisements, and the
packaging of Red Bull energy drinks that they can significantly
improve a consumer's physiological and mental performance beyond
what a simple cup of coffee or caffeine pill would do.
The Defendants manufacture and distribute Red Bull branded energy
drinks throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel L. Morales-Schmidt, Esq.
DELGADO & MORALES LAW OFFICE
Urb. Santa Cruz
47 Esteban Padilla Suite 1-A
Bayamon, PR 00961
Telephone: (787) 993-2109
Facsimile: (787) 946-1767
E-mail: lcdo.manuelmorales@delgado-morales.com
RJ REYNOLDS: Tobacco Firms Sue FDA Over Labeling Guidelines
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the nation's largest tobacco companies are suing the Food and Drug
Administration over recent guidelines that they claim overstep the
agency's authority over labeling and packaging for cigarettes and
other tobacco products.
Units of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Altria Group Inc. and Lorillard
Tobacco filed the lawsuit on April 14 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, claiming the FDA's guidance
infringes on their commercial speech.
The FDA gained authority to regulate tobacco in 2009, including
the power to pre-review new tobacco products that are
significantly different from older ones already on the market.
Last month the agency issued guidelines intended to help
manufacturers determine which new products require FDA review.
But the tobacco makers allege that the FDA is asserting overly-
broad authority to approve or deny any labeling change that would
make a product "distinct." Their lawsuit argues that the FDA only
has prior-review authority for labels on tobacco products claiming
to represent a "modified risk," or to be less harmful than other
tobacco products.
FDA guidelines are considered suggestions and are not legally
binding. But the tobacco companies say the FDA document "creates
specific legal obligations with clear and draconian consequences
for violations."
The FDA said it does not comment on litigation.
The agency issued a draft version of the guidelines in September
2011 and took comments from industry and the public on the
proposal. In an explanation accompanying the final guidelines
issued last month, the FDA said that certain labeling changes
effectively create a new product "if consumers are likely to
perceive it as 'new' by virtue of the different label."
Regulators listed examples such as changing a product's logo,
packaging color or product description.
The U.S. tobacco industry has repeatedly challenged FDA authority
in court since Congress passed the Tobacco Control Act of 2009.
In 2011, some of the industry's largest companies sued the FDA to
block an order that would have required cigarette packages to
carry large, graphic warning labels illustrating the dangers of
smoking. But an appeals court decision ruled that the labels
violated the First Amendment's free speech protections and the
government abandoned the plan in 2013.
Tobacco companies rely on their packaging to build brand loyalty
and grab consumers. It's one of few advertising levers left to
them after the government curbed their presence in magazines,
billboards and TV.
RJ REYNOLDS: Gets Big Win in Recent Engle Progeny Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that it's
ironic that after years of failed efforts, Big Tobacco finally won
a ruling that seriously undercuts the famous Engle ruling, a 2006
decision by the Florida Supreme Court that has been the bane of
the industry. As the Daily Business Review reported, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on April 8 that
so-called Engle progeny cases in federal court may not proceed
under the presumption that cigarettes were defective as a matter
of law.
The problem? The industry in February announced that it was
settling nearly every case that might have been affected by this
ruling.
In Engle v. Liggett Group, the Florida Supreme Court in 2006
decertified a class that had won a $145 billion award against the
tobacco companies. To avoid having each of the cases tried again
from scratch, the court crafted a "pragmatic solution" that let
future plaintiffs rely on certain findings from the class action
trial. These included the Engle jury's finding that tobacco
companies marketed cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably
dangerous, and that they concealed the dangers of smoking from the
public.
In February, after decades of doggedly fighting lawsuits by
smokers, the three major tobacco companies agreed to settle
roughly 400 individual federal smoker suits in Florida for a total
of $100 million. It was the first major truce negotiated by the
defendants in nearly two decades of nationwide smoker litigation.
RJR said at the time that the agreement resolved "virtually" all
the companies' yet-to-be-tried Engle cases pending in federal
court.
Then on April 8, the Eleventh Circuit accepted the tobacco
companies' argument that some aspects of the Engle presumption
were invalid under the principle of implied preemption. The court
reasoned that the Engle presumptions that apply to negligence and
strict liability claims operate, in essence, as a ban on
cigarettes.
"[That] conflicts with Congress's clear purpose and objective of
regulating -- not banning -- cigarettes, thereby leaving to adult
consumers the choice whether to smoke cigarettes or to abstain,"
the court wrote. The ruling did not overturn the Engle
presumptions that apply to conspiracy and concealment claims. The
decision was authored by Judge Gerald Tjoflat, who was joined by
Judge Jill Pryor and Senior Judge Emmett Ripley Cox.
The Eleventh Circuit decision is not binding on the more than
3,000 Engle-progeny cases that are pending in Florida state
courts, but tobacco companies will surely argue that these state
courts should adopt this reasoning.
The ruling is a win for Gregory Katsas -- ggkatsas@jonesday.com --
of Jones Day, who argued for his client R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company and for Philip Morris USA Inc. "We are very pleased that
our position was vindicated in such a strong opinion," said
Mr. Katsas in an email. Philip Morris is also represented by
Mayer Brown and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
Plaintiff Earl Graham, the widower of deceased smoker Faye Graham,
was represented before the Eleventh Circuit by Jerome Mayer-Cantu,
an associate at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.
In 2013 the Eleventh Circuit rejected tobacco companies' arguments
that the Engle framework violated their due process rights. In
recent years, the industry has filed a flurry of cert petitions to
the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review various Engle progeny
cases, but the court has declined them all.
R.J. Reynolds spokesperson David Howard sent us this comment: "We
are pleased with the unanimous decision of the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals that calls into question the underpinnings of all
Engle litigation." Philip Morris declined to comment.
Meanwhile, the tobacco industry suffered a serious blow earlier
this month in a ruling that applies to all Engle progeny cases in
state court. The Florida Supreme Court held in two cases that
Florida's 12-year statute of repose for fraud can't bar claims for
conspiracy and concealment. If the statute of repose had applied,
plaintiffs could not present evidence of the defendants' conduct
before 1982. (The year 1982 is 12 years before the Engle case was
filed.) With this ruling, they can present evidence of the
industry's conduct going back to the 1950s and beyond.
SANCHELIMA AND ASSOCIATES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caridad Daniels and Lazaro Tabares, for themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Sanchelima and Associates, P.A., Jesus "Jay"
Sanchelima, and Flor Angel "Angie" Sanchelima, Case No. 1:15-cv-
21321 (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a law firm in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Benjamin Feiler, Esq.
FEILER & LEACH, PL
901 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
Penthouse Suite
Coral Gables, FL 33134-3009
Telephone: (305) 441-8818
Facsimile: (305) 441-8081
E-mail: mbf@flmlegal.com
SEA WORLD: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Captive Orcas
---------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Kuhl, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Sea World LLC, et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-
00574-ACC-GJK (M.D. Fla., April 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to disclose the truth about the conditions
and treatment of its captive orcas, specifically the impact on
these animals of captivity in a tiny confined space, the forced
separation of young whales from their mothers, the unnatural
mixing of whales that do not have the same culture in small
spaces, the forced breeding and inbreeding of young female whales,
the routine use of pharmaceutical products to unnaturally drug the
orcas, the psychological manipulation and at times food
deprivation to which they are subjected, the deep rake marks on
the bodies that result from incompatibility and cramped
conditions, and many other life shortening and painful experiences
from which they have no escape.
Sea World LLC owns and operates a marine-life theme park
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL S. ROTHSTEIN
626 NE First St
Gainesville, FL 32601
Telephone: (352) 376-7650
Facsimile: (352) 374-7133
E-mail: psr@rothsteinforjustice.com
SNACK FACTORY: Falsely Marketed Pretzel Products, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Dedrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Snack Factory, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01605 (N.D. Cal.,
April 8, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and
representation that its Pretzel Crisps product is All Natural.
When in fact, the Products contain unnatural, synthetic,
artificial, and genetically modified ingredients, such as,
maltodextrin, soybean oil, malt syrup, citric acid, dextrose,
cornstarch, modified food starch, and caramel color.
Snack Factory, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Charlotte, North
Carolina. It manufactures and distributes snack food products
throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
1016 Palm Avenue
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
SOBEYS INC: Recalls In-store Prepared Salads Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sobeys Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
Sobeys Inc. is recalling various in-store prepared salads from the
marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.
The following products have been sold in Sobeys and IGA retail
locations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.
Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.
This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.
The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) UPC
---------- ----------- ---- on product ---
----------
None Chicken Grk 450 g All best before Starts with
Salad Small dates up to and 2 46396
including 2015
AL 05
None Chicken Caesar 450 g All best before Starts with
Sld Small dates up to and 2 46400
including 2015
AL 05
None Chicken Caesar 585 g All best before Starts with
Sld Large dates up to and 2 46402
including 2015
AL 05
None Chicken Spring 585 g All best before Starts with
Mix Sld Sml dates up to and 2 46405
including 2015
AL 05
None Chicken Ham 440 g All best before Starts with
Salad Small dates up to and 2 24950
including 2015
AL 05
None Mandarin 320 g All best before Starts with
Chicken Sld dates up to and 2 46415
Sml including 2015
AL 05
None Cobb Salad 450 g All best before Starts with
Small dates up to and 2 24951
including 2015
AL 05
None Small Muskoka 250 g All best before Starts with
Chckn Salad dates up to and 2 54619
including 2015
AL 05
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/BppfwS
SOFIA FABULOUS: "Ibanez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Ibanez and John Doe, on behalf of themselves of all others
similarly situated v. Sofia Fabulous Pizza Corp., Sofia 61st St.
Corp., Serafina Broadway Ltd., Serafina 77 West LLC, Regency
Restaurant LLC, Serafina Meatpacking Ltd., Sofia 58th St. Corp.,
Serafina East Hampton Corp., Serafina White Plains LLC, Vittorio
Assaf a/k/a Victor Assaf, Pasquale Granato a/k/a Fabio Granato,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02661 (S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate Serafina restaurants in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
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: anne@leelitigation.com
cklee@leelitigation.com
SONUS NETWORKS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ming Huang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sonus Networks, Inc., Raymond P. Dolan, aend Mark T.
Greenquist, Case No. 3:15-cv-02407 (D.N.J., April 6, 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.
Sonus Networks, Inc. Delaware and headquartered in Massachusetts
provides networked solutions from communications service providers
and enterprises, bringing intelligence and security to real-time
communications.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, NJ 07079
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
TAKATA CORP: Auto Recyclers Association Files Airbag Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Eric T. Chaffin at The Legal
Examiner, on February 10, 2015, the Automotive Recyclers
Association (ARA) announced they had filed a class action lawsuit
against Takata Corporation, its subsidiaries, and a number of
automakers. They stated in a press release that they filed the
case on behalf of "all persons and entities who operate
professional automotive recycling facilities in the United States
who have purchased for resale any of the vehicles containing
undeployed and allegedly defective airbags manufactured by
Takata."
The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Florida, the
location of the current Takata air bag MDL.
ARA States Takata Misled Recyclers About Value of Air Bags
The ARA is an international trade association dedicated to the
"efficient removal and reuse of automotive parts," according to
their website, and "the safe disposal of inoperable motor
vehicles." It serves the automotive recycling industry in 12
countries, and operates through direct membership and affiliated
chapters.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers states that automotive
recycling is the 16th largest industry in the U.S., with about
7,000 operations around the country. "Recycling autos provides
enough steel to produce almost 13 million new automobiles, while
generating jobs for 46,000 people." They add that the automobile
is the most recycled consumer product in the world today, with 95
percent of retired vehicles processed for recycling each year.
Part of the recycling process is removing reusable parts from the
vehicles for use in other vehicles, or removing parts for
remanufacturing or rebuilding. Automotive recyclers, for
instance, can retrieve never-deployed air bags and sell them as
replacement parts to collision repair shops. The ARA conducted
tests on such airbags in the late 1990s, and showed them to
operate within performance specifications.
According to their complaint, the ARA states that Takata knew
about the alleged defects causing some of their air bags to
explode and injure or kill vehicle occupants, yet withheld this
information from the public and from the ARA. As a result, many
recyclers overpaid for what are now considered to be worthless air
bags, since they cannot be used as replacement parts.
Class Action Lawsuit Joins Takata MDL
The ARA goes on to state in their complaint that they expected
Takata would disclose "in a timely manner" the defects associated
with their air bags, so that recyclers would have had the option
not to purchase vehicles containing them for more than they were
worth. As it is, recyclers were unaware until the information
came out last year (2014), leaving them with thousands of air bags
they can't sell.
This class action lawsuit joins five others that were already
pending and had been transferred to the Southern District of
Florida via the February 5, 2015 order of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). At least 65 other individual
Takata air bag lawsuits pending around the country are also
expected to join the MDL.
TAYLOR ENERGY: Secrecy Shrouds Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman and Jeff Donn, writing for The Associated Press,
report that a blanket of fog lifts, exposing a band of rainbow
sheen that stretches for miles off the coast of Louisiana. From
the vantage point of an airplane, it's easy to see gas bubbles in
the slick that mark the spot where an oil platform toppled during
a 2004 hurricane, triggering what might be the longest-running
commercial oil spill ever to pollute the Gulf of Mexico.
Yet more than a decade after crude started leaking at the site
formerly operated by Taylor Energy Company, few people even know
of its existence. The company has downplayed the leak's extent
and environmental impact, likening it to scores of minor spills
and natural seeps the Gulf routinely absorbs.
An Associated Press investigation has revealed evidence that the
spill is far worse than what Taylor -- or the government -- have
publicly reported during their secretive, and costly, effort to
halt the leak. Presented with AP's findings, that the sheen
recently averaged about 91 gallons of oil per day across eight
square miles, the Coast Guard provided a new leak estimate that is
about 20 times greater than one recently touted by the company.
Outside experts say the spill could be even worse -- possibly one
of the largest ever in the Gulf.
Taylor's oil was befouling the Gulf for years in obscurity before
BP's massive spill in mile-deep water outraged the nation in 2010.
Even industry experts haven't heard of Taylor's slow-motion spill,
which has been leaking like a steady trickle from a faucet,
compared to the fire hose that was BP's gusher.
Taylor, a company renowned in Louisiana for the philanthropy of
its deceased founder, has kept documents secret that would shed
light on what it has done to stop the leak and eliminate the
persistent sheen.
The Coast Guard said in 2008 the leak posed a "significant threat"
to the environment, though there is no evidence oil from the site
has reached shore. Ian MacDonald, a Florida State University
biological oceanography professor and expert witness in a lawsuit
against Taylor, said the sheen "presents a substantial threat to
the environment" and is capable of harming birds, fish and other
marine life.
Using satellite images and pollution reports, the watchdog group
SkyTruth estimates between 300,000 and 1.4 million gallons of oil
has spilled from the site since 2004, with an annual average daily
leak rate between 37 and 900 gallons.
If SkyTruth's high-end estimate of 1.4 million gallons is
accurate, Taylor's spill would be about 1 percent the size of
BP's, which a judge ruled amounted to 134 million gallons. That
would still make the Taylor spill the 8th largest in the Gulf
since 1970, according to a list compiled by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
"The Taylor leak is just a great example of what I call a dirty
little secret in plain sight," said SkyTruth President John Amos.
Taylor has spent tens of millions of dollars to contain and stop
its leak, but it says nothing can be done to completely halt the
chronic slicks.
The New Orleans based company presented federal regulators last
year with a proposed "final resolution" at the site, but the
details remain under wraps. For years, the government has allowed
the company to shield other spill-related information from public
scrutiny -- all in the name of protecting trade secrets.
Industry experts and environmental advocates are baffled by
Taylor's inability to stop the leak and its demands for
confidentiality.
"It's not normal to have a spill like this," said Ken Arnold, an
industry consultant and former engineering manager for Shell Oil
Company. "The whole thing surprises me. Normally, we fix things
much more quickly than this."
Five years ago, it took 87 days for BP to cap its blown-out Gulf
well and halt the worst offshore oil spill in the nation's
history. The disaster, which killed 11 rig workers, exposed
weaknesses in the industry's safety culture and gaps in its spill
response capabilities.
Taylor's leak provided earlier evidence of how difficult it can be
for the industry to prevent or stop a spill in an unforgiving
environment. But the company has balked at sharing information
that could help other offshore operators prepare for a similar
incident, saying it's a valuable asset.
Whether it can profit from any industry innovations is debatable.
The company sold all its offshore leases and oil and gas interests
in 2008, four years after founder Patrick Taylor died.
Down to just one full-time employee, Taylor Energy exists only to
continue fighting a spill that has no end in sight.
THIERRY OLLIVIER: Falsely Marketed Goji Berry Products, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Torrent, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Thierry Ollivier, Natierra, and Brandstorm, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-02511 (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' false, deceptive and misleading advertising
campaign of their Himalania brand goji berries that the berries
are harvested from the Himalayas before being processed and placed
into the packages. When in fact, the goji berries come from the
Ningxia province of China.
Thierry Ollivier, Natierra, and Brandstorm, Inc. is a California
corporation that imports and sells unique superfoods, salts, and
snacks under beloved brands, Himalania and Nature's All Foods.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared H. Beck, Esq.
Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
Corporate Park at Kendall
12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
Miami, FL 33186
Telephone: (305) 234-2060
Facsimile: (786) 664-3334
E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
elizabeth@beckandlee.com
- and -
Antonino G. Hernandez, Esq.
ANTONINO G. HERNANDEZ P.A.
4 SE 1st Street, 2nd Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 282 3698
Facsimile: (786) 513 7748
E-mail: Hern8491@bellsouth.net
- and -
Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
6541 NE 21st Way
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33108
Telephone: (561) 676-6370
Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com
TRADER JOE'S: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that Grocery chain
Trader Joe's Co. was hit with a proposed class action on March 18
in California, alleging that a 2014 restructuring of its workforce
violated state and federal law because it resulted in the
systematic demotion of employees over the age of 45.
The lawsuit, brought by employee Keith Garlough, alleges that
Trader Joe's targeted its older workers for demotion and replaced
them with younger, less experienced associates. The overhaul
resulted in a loss of pay, hours and health and vacation benefits
for workers over 45 years old and precluded them from receiving
bonuses.
The restructuring occurred in March and April of 2014, according
to the complaint. In general, older workers who held the position
of "merchant" -- a position just below assistant store manager --
were demoted to entry level "crew" positions, the lawsuit said.
Mr. Garlough has worked at a California Trader Joe's for eight
years, and held the merchant title for four years. In May 2014,
his supervisor informed him that he would be transferred to a
different location or face being demoted to crew and put on a
probationary period that "he was not likely to pass," the lawsuit
said.
"The demotions carried out as part of the 2014 restructuring had a
significant negative impact on the income and benefits earned by
employees over the age of 40," the lawsuit said. "For example,
merchant employees who were over the age of 40 and demoted to crew
suffered a substantial reduction in hours and were no longer
eligible for overtime pay. They also incurred greater health
insurance costs and received reduced health benefits, less
vacation and leave pay and diminished retirement contributions.
Persons demoted from merchant to crew, including plaintiff
Garlough, also found themselves ineligible for bonuses."
Mr. Garlough, who was 49 years old at the time, saw his wages
reduced by $8.50 an hour as a result of the demotion. Prior to
the demotion, Mr. Garlough says that he received generally high
marks for his professionalism, customer service and work
performance.
The lawsuit seeks to represent current and former employees 45
years old or older who were employed by Trader Joe's at the time
of the restructuring. The complaint alleges that companywide
policy at Trader Joe's violated the federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and
state competition law.
Mr. Garlough is represented by Stanley Saltzman, Marcus Bradley,
Kiley Grombacher and Leslie Joyner of Marlin & Saltzman LLP and
William Kershaw and Ian Barlow of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP.
The case is Keith Garlough v. Trader Joe's Co., case number 3:15-
cv-01278, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
TRIPLE S: Sued in D.P.R. Over Alleged Illegal Market Allocation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et al., v. Triple S Salud, Case No.
3:15-cv-01348 (D.P.R., April 6, 2015), arises out of the unlawful
conspiracy between and among the Defendants (BCBS-Puerto Rico),
the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and the thirty-six
other Blue Cross Blue Shield member plans of the BCBSA to divide
and allocate geographic markets among the Individual Blue Plans.
Triple S Salud is the health insurance plan operating under the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Puerto
Rico. It maintains its principal headquarters at located at 1441
F.D. Roosevelt Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00920.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Nevares, Esq.
JOHN F. NEVARES & ASSOCIATES, PSC
P.O. Box 13667
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908-3667
Telephone: (787) 722-9333
Facsimile: (787) 721-8820
E-mail: jfnevares@nevareslaw.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
Facsimile: (914) 749-8200
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
- and -
Michael Hausfeld, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
- and -
Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
PITTMAN,DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 322-8880
Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
- and -
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
- and -
Gregory Davis, Esq.
DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
7031 Halcyon Park Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117
Telephone: (334) 832-9080
Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
E-mail: gldavis@knology.net
- and -
Megan Jones, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 744-1970
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com
- and -
Kathleen Chavez, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
10 West State Street, Suite 200
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 797-3339
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com
- and -
Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
Telephone: (410) 949-1145
Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (800) 424-6690
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
- and -
Karen Dyer, Esq.
Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER &FLEXNER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: tchutkan@bsfllp.com
kdyer@bsfllp.com
hhume@bsfllp.com
kkiernan@bsfllp.com
- and -
Patrick Cafferty, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
101 North Main Street, Suite 565
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 769-2144
Facsimile: (734) 769-1207
E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Bryan Clobes, Esq.
Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Douglas Dellaccio, Esq.
CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 32505
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
E-mail: ddellaccio@cwcd.com
- and -
Chris Cowan, Esq.
THE COWAN LAW FIRM
209 Henry Street
Dallas, TX 74226-1819
Telephone: (214) 826-1900
Facsimile: (214) 826-8900
E-mail: chris@cowanlaw.net
- and -
Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq.
Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
200 First Avenue, Suite 300
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 261-2393
Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
E-mail: ekilpela@dsclaw.com
bsweet@dsclaw.com
- and-
Robert M. Foote, Esq.
FOOTE,MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
10 West State Street, Suite 200
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 797-3339
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com
- and -
Charles T. Caliendo, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com
- and -
Robert Eisler, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com
TT CO: Recalls Premium Flavored Ice Cream Powders Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 31, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 9720
Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC
---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ ----
TT Co. Premium 1 kg All codes where milk None
Flavoured Cream is not declared on the
Powder - Coconut label
Powder
TT Co. Premium 1 kg All codes where milk None
Flavoured Cream is not declared on the
Powder - label
Honeydew Powder
TT Co. Premium 1 kg All codes where milk None
Flavoured Cream is not declared on the
Powder - Strawberry label
Powder
TT Co. Premium 1 kg All codes where milk None
Flavoured Cream is not declared on the
Powder - Matcha label
Powder
TT Co. Premium 1 kg All codes where milk None
Flavoured Cream is not declared on the
Powder - Mango label
Powder
UNITED STATES: Court Permits Discovery; Rejects IRS Bid to Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan J. Dlott of the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division ruled on the parties' motions in the case NorCal
Tea Party Patriots, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Internal Revenue
Service, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-341 (S.D. Ohio)
Plaintiffs refer to themselves, and the members of the class which
they seek to represent, as dissenting groups. Plaintiffs alleged
that the United States, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and
individual IRS officers and employers -- subjected the dissenting
groups, on the basis of their beliefs, to delays and intrusive
scrutiny during the tax-exempt status application process.
Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on
January 23, 2014 and then filed a corrected version on October 7,
2014. Plaintiffs asserted three substantive causes of action:
Count One: Violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552;
Count Two: Violations of the First and Fifth Amendments to the
United States Constitution; and Count Three: Violation of 26
U.S.C. Section 6103, a statute which protects the confidentiality
of tax return information.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint. In an Order dated July 17, 2014, the court dismissed
all claims alleged against individual IRS officers and employees.
The court also dismissed the Privacy Act claim against the United
States and the IRS. The court allowed the claims against the
Government for constitutional violations and violations of Section
6103 to go forward.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to discover the identity of the putative
class. The United States filed a motion for protective order to
prevent disclosure of non-party tax return information. The
Government contends that it cannot provide discovery obtained from
or based upon the putative class member organizations' tax returns
or tax return information because that information is shielded
from disclosure by 26 U.S.C. Section 6103.
Judge Dlott denied the government's motion for a protective order
and granted plaintiffs' motion to discover and orders the
government to respond to request for production.
A copy of Judge Dlott's order dated April 1, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/PW7ZT4 from Leagle.com
NorCal Tea Party Patriots, on behalf of itself, its members, and
the class it seeks to represent, Plaintiff, represented by David R
Langdon, Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law
Group LLP, Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law Group LLP,
Christopher P Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Dane C. Martin, Graves
Garrett LLC, Edward D Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus &Garrett, LLC,
Joshua B. Bolinger, Langdon Law LLC & Todd P Graves, Graves
Garrett, LLC
Faith and Freedom Coalition of Ohio, on behalf of themselves,
their members, and the class they seek to represent, Plaintiff,
represented by David R Langdon, Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill
& Bev Randles Law Group LLP, Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law
Group LLP, Christopher P Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Dane C.
Martin, Graves Garrett LLC, Edward D Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus
&Garrett, LLC, Joshua B. Bolinger, Langdon Law LLC & Todd P
Graves, Graves Garrett, LLC
Simi Valley Moorpark Tea Party, on behalf of themselves, their
members, and the class they seek to represent, Plaintiff,
represented by David R Langdon, Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill
& Bev Randles Law Group LLP, Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law
Group LLP, Christopher P Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Dane C.
Martin, Graves Garrett LLC, Edward D Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus
&Garrett, LLC, Joshua B. Bolinger, Langdon Law LLC & Todd P
Graves, Graves Garrett, LLC
Tampa 9-12 Project, Plaintiff, represented by David R Langdon,
Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law Group LLP,
Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law Group LLP, Christopher P
Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Dane C. Martin, Graves Garrett LLC,
Edward D Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus &Garrett, LLC, Joshua B.
Bolinger, Langdon Law LLC & Todd P Graves, Graves Garrett, LLC
South Dakota Citizens for Liberty, INC., on behalf of themselves,
their members, and the class they seek to represent, Plaintiff,
represented by David R Langdon, Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill
& Bev Randles Law Group LLP, Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law
Group LLP, Christopher P Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Edward D
Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus &Garrett, LLC, Joshua B. Bolinger,
Langdon Law LLC & Todd P Graves, Graves Garrett, LLC
Texas Patriots Tea Party, on behalf of themselves, their members,
and the class they seek to represent, Plaintiff, represented by
David R Langdon, Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill & Bev Randles
Law Group LLP, Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law Group LLP,
Christopher P Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Dane C. Martin, Graves
Garrett LLC, Edward D Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus & Garrett,
LLC, Joshua B. Bolinger, Langdon Law LLC & Todd P Graves, Graves
Garrett, LLC
Americans Against Oppressive Laws, Inc., on behalf of themselves,
their members, and the class they seek to represent, Plaintiff,
represented by David R Langdon, Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill
& Bev Randles Law Group LLP, Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law
Group LLP, Christopher P Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Dane C.
Martin, Graves Garrett LLC, Edward D Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus
&Garrett, LLC, Joshua B. Bolinger, Langdon Law LLC & Todd P
Graves, Graves Garrett, LLC
San Angelo Tea Party, on behalf of themselves, their members, and
the class they seek to represent, Plaintiff, represented by David
R Langdon, Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law
Group LLP, Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law Group LLP,
Christopher P Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Dane C. Martin, Graves
Garrett LLC, Edward D Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus &Garrett, LLC,
Joshua B. Bolinger, Langdon Law LLC & Todd P Graves, Graves
Garrett, LLC
Prescott Tea Party, on behalf of themselves, their members, and
the class they seek to represent, Plaintiff, represented by David
R Langdon, Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law
Group LLP, Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law Group LLP,
Christopher P Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Dane C. Martin, Graves
Garrett LLC, Edward D Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus &Garrett, LLC,
Joshua B. Bolinger, Langdon Law LLC & Todd P Graves, Graves
Garrett, LLC
Texas Public Policy Foundation, on behalf of themselves, their
members, and the class they seek to represent, Plaintiff,
represented by David R Langdon, Langdon Law LLC, Bev Randles, Bill
& Bev Randles Law Group LLP, Bill Randles, Bill & Bev Randles Law
Group LLP, Christopher P Finney, Finney Law Firm, LLC, Dane C.
Martin, Graves Garrett LLC, Edward D Greim, Graves, Bartle, Marcus
&Garrett, LLC, Joshua B. Bolinger, Langdon Law LLC & Todd P
Graves, Graves Garrett, LLC
Internal Revenue Service, Defendant, represented by Grover Hartt,
III, U.S. Department of Justice, Joseph A Sergi, U.S. Department
of Justice, Christopher R Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Gerald
Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice, Laura Beckerman, U.S.
Department of Justice, Tax Division, Laura M Conner, U S Dept of
Justice & Matthew Joseph Horwitz, United States Attorney's Office
for the Southern Distri
John Does, 1-100 Current and Former Employees of the Internal
Revenue Service, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of
Justice
Lois Lerner, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Steven Miller, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Douglas Shulman, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
William Wilkins, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Sarah Hall Ingram, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Joseph Grant, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Holly Paz, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Carter Hull, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A Lamken,
MoloLamken LLP, Joseph A Sergi, U.S. Department of Justice, Pierre
H Bergeron, Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP, Thomas E Zeno, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP, Eric R. Nitz, MoloLamken LLP, Gerald Alan Role,
U.S. Department of Justice, Justin V. Shur, MoloLamken LLP &
Lauren Kuley, Squire Sanders (US) LLP
Brenda Melahn, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Cindy Thomas, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Bonnie Esrig, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Steven F. Bolling, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Sergi, U.S.
Department of Justice, Mark T Hayden, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Brigida Benitez, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Erica Gerson, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP & Gerald Alan Role, U.S. Department of Justice
Mitchell Steele, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A Lamken,
MoloLamken LLP, Joseph A Sergi, U.S. Department of Justice, Pierre
H Bergeron, Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP, Thomas E Zeno, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP, Eric R. Nitz, MoloLamken LLP, Gerald Alan Role,
U.S. Department of Justice, Justin V. Shur, MoloLamken LLP &
Lauren Kuley, Squire Sanders (US) LLP.
Carly Young, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A Lamken,
MoloLamken LLP, Joseph A Sergi, U.S. Department of Justice, Pierre
H Bergeron, Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP, Thomas E Zeno, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP, Eric R. Nitz, MoloLamken LLP, Gerald Alan Role,
U.S. Department of Justice, Justin V. Shur, MoloLamken LLP &
Lauren Kuley, Squire Sanders (US) LLP
Joseph Herr, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A Lamken,
MoloLamken LLP, Joseph A Sergi, U.S. Department of Justice, Pierre
H Bergeron, Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP, Thomas E Zeno, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP, Eric R. Nitz, MoloLamken LLP, Gerald Alan Role,
U.S. Department of Justice, Justin V. Shur, MoloLamken LLP &
Lauren Kuley, Squire Sanders (US) LLP
Stephen Seok, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A Lamken,
MoloLamken LLP, Joseph A Sergi, U.S. Department of Justice, Pierre
H Bergeron, Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP, Thomas E Zeno, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP, Eric R. Nitz, MoloLamken LLP, Gerald Alan Role,
U.S. Department of Justice, Justin V. Shur, MoloLamken LLP &
Lauren Kuley, Squire Sanders (US) LLP
Elizabeth Hofacre, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A Lamken,
MoloLamken LLP, Joseph A Sergi, U.S. Department of Justice, Pierre
H Bergeron, Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP, Thomas E Zeno, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP, Eric R. Nitz, MoloLamken LLP, Gerald Alan Role,
U.S. Department of Justice, Justin V. Shur, MoloLamken LLP &
Lauren Kuley, Squire Sanders (US) LLP
Grant Herring, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A Lamken,
MoloLamken LLP, Joseph A Sergi, U.S. Department of Justice, Pierre
H Bergeron, Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP, Thomas E Zeno, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP, Eric R. Nitz, MoloLamken LLP, Gerald Alan Role,
U.S. Department of Justice, Justin V. Shur, MoloLamken LLP &
Lauren Kuley, Squire Sanders (US) LLP
United States of America, Defendant, represented by Gerald Alan
Role, U.S. Department of Justice,Jennifer Auchterlonie, U.S. Dept.
of Justice, Tax Division, Jeremy N Hendon, U.S. Dept. of Justice,
Tax Division & Laura Beckerman, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax
Division
UNITED STATES: Award of Attorneys' Fees Reduced by DC Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul L. Friedman of the District of Columbia
granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for
attorneys' fees in the case TIMOTHY PIGFORD et al., Plaintiffs, v.
TOM VILSACK, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant. CECIL BREWINGTON et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOM VILSACK,
Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NOS. 97-1978 (PLF), 98-1693 (PLF) (D.C.)
Jesse Kearney, a partner at Cross & Kearney, began representing
James T. Stephenson, a Track B claimant who alleged that the
Farmers Home Administration, an agency of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), discriminated against Mr.
Stephenson in the provision of farm loans.
The parties entered mediation on August 2, 2010, and settled the
Track B claim for $142,500 on August 17, 2010. Since then, the
parties have been unable to resolve the question of attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses, which was expressly left open in the
settlement agreement.
Cross & Kearney seeks $282,641.17 in attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses under the April 14, 1999 Consent Decree; the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1691 et seq. (ECOA); and the
Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2412. USDA argues
that Cross & Kearney's award should be reduced by a total of 75%
to reflect Mr. Stephenson's supposedly modest settlement as well
as alleged deficiencies in the law firm's billing records.
Justice Friedman granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's
motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. The USDA shall pay:
-- Cross & Kearney PLLC $220,648.75 in attorneys' fees and
$20,230.90 in expenses.
-- David Fierst of Stein, Mitchell, Muse, Cipollone & Beato,
LLP $28,000.00 in attorneys' fees.
If these amounts are not paid on or before May 1, 2015, they will
bear interest at the rate established by 28 U.S.C. Section 1961.
A copy of Judge Friedman's opinion and order dated March 31, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/tCjY1O from Leagle.com.
TIMOTHY C. PIGFORD, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Charles Jerome Ware, CHARLES JEROME WARE,
P.A., David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BRANCH, Faya R. Toure,
Jacob A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P., Richard Talbot
Seymour, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C., Barbara Kim
Kagan, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP,Joshua A Doan, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE & Richard Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T.
SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
LLOYD SHAFER, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BRANCH, Jacob
A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P., Mona Lyons, LAW OFFICES
OF MONA LYONS & Richard Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T.
SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
GEORGE HALL, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented byAnthony Herman, COVINGTON &
BURLING LLP, Caroline Lewis Wolverton, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BRANCH, Jacob A. Stein,
STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. & Richard Talbot Seymour, LAW
OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
LEONARD COOPER, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
BRANCH, Jacob A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P.,Stephon J.
Bowens, BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A. &
Marcus B. Jimison, NCCU SCHOOL OF LAW
ABRAHAM CARPENTER, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
BRANCH & Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP
LEONARD HUNTER, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. Ogletree,
Jr., CHARLES J. OGLETREE CONSULTING
ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Anurag Varma, AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP,David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
BRANCH, David U. Fierst, STEIN, MITCHELL, MUSE & CIPOLLONE LLP,
David Joseph Frantz, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP, Faya R. Toure,
Jesse L. Kearney, Othello C. Cross, CROSS, KEARNEY & MCKISSIC,
Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP & Rose M. Sanders
CROSS & KEARNEY PLLC, Plaintiff, represented by David U. Fierst,
STEIN, MITCHELL, MUSE & CIPOLLONE LLP
HOUSTON BLAKENEY, Petitioner, represented by Stephon J. Bowens,
BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A.
REATHA BLAKENEY, Petitioner, represented by Stephon J. Bowens,
BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A.
LEROY ROBINSON, Petitioner, represented by Stephon J. Bowens,
BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A.
BOBBI NEWTON, Petitioner, represented by Stephon J. Bowens,
BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A.
PEARLIE PETERSON, Petitioner, represented by Stephon J. Bowens,
BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A.
NAOMI KNOCKETT, Petitioner, represented by Stephon J. Bowens,
BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A.
ILENTHE PORTER, Petitioner, represented by Stephon J. Bowens,
BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A.
JAMES DAVIS, Petitioner, represented by Stephon J. Bowens,
BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A.
ANN M. VENEMAN, Secretary of Agriculture, Defendant, represented
by Andrea Iris Newmark, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Daniel Edward
Bensing, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Elizabeth Goitein, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Herbert E. Forrest, US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Julie Straus, U.S. DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE, Matthew
Josephson, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tamra Tyree Moore, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Terry Marcus Henry, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Andrew Marshall Bernie, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Joel
L. McElvain, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Stephen McCoy Elliott,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Elbert Lin, OFFICE OF THE WEST
VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL & Marsha Stelson Edney, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
TOM VILSACK, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant, represented by Matthew Josephson, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Megan Anne Crowley, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &Andrew
Marshall Bernie, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EARNEST HAROLD LONG, Interested Party, represented by EARNEST
HAROLD LONG
ERNEST BANKS, Interested Party, represented by David Joseph
Frantz, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP
RUTH BANKS, Interested Party, represented by David Joseph Frantz,
CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP
GEORGE ROBERTS, Interested Party, represented by David Joseph
Frantz, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP
BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, Interested Party,
represented by David U. Fierst, STEIN, MITCHELL, MUSE & CIPOLLONE
LLP
SHEILA JOHNSON, Interested Party, represented by Robert Elijah
Jordan, III, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
ANGELA DOZIER-CARTER, Interested Party, Pro Se
THEODORE F.B. BATES, Interested Party, Pro Se
PHILLIP L. FRAAS, Interested Party, represented by Phillip L.
Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP
THOMAS BURRELL, Claimant, represented by John W. Davis, LAW
OFFICES OF JOHN W. DAVIS
SANDY MCKINNON, Claimant, represented by Stephon J. Bowens,
BLANCHARD, JENKINS, MILLER, LEWIS AND STYERS, P.A.
BEN HILLSMAN, JR., Claimant, represented by Gerard Robert Lear,
SPEISER KRAUSE
ZELMA J. HILLSMAN, Claimant, represented by Gerard Robert Lear,
SPEISER KRAUSE
LEON MATHEWS, Claimant, represented by Joshua A Doan, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ROBERT HOLMES, SR., Claimant, represented by Joshua A Doan, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ESTATE OF CHARLIE KNOTT, Claimant, represented by David N. Fagan,
COVINGTON & BURLING
MAURICE MCGINNIS, Claimant, represented by John M. Shoreman,
MCFADDEN & SHOREMAN, LLC
EDWARD L. SCOTT, JR., Claimant, represented by Phillip L. Fraas,
STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP & Levi Boone, III, BOONE LAW FIRM,
P.A.
SARAH DAVIS, Movant, represented by Dennis Charles Sweet, LANSTON,
FRAZER, SWEET & FREESE
BANKS LAW FIRM, Movant, represented by Wyndell Oliver Banks.
JAMES TANNER, Movant, represented by Ford C Ladd, LAW OFFICES OF
FORD C LADD
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. BRANCH, Movant, represented by David A.
Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BRANCH
J.L. CHESTNUT, on behalf of an identified class of "late
claimants", Movant, represented by Faya R. Toure
ROSE M. SANDERS, Movant, represented by Faya R. Toure
OTHELLO C. CROSS, Movant, represented by Othello C. Cross, CROSS,
KEARNEY & MCKISSIC
CONLON FRANTZ PHELAN & PIRES, Movant, represented by Anurag Varma,
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP & David Joseph Frantz, CONLON,
FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP
SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP, Movant, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Emily Johnson Henn, COVINGTON & BURLING
LLP & Joshua A Doan, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
MUHAMMAD ROBBALAA, Movant, Pro Se
MCARTHUR NESBIT, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
BRANCH, Jacob A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. &Richard
Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
EDDIE SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
BRANCH, Jacob A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. & Richard
Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
LEO JACKSON, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman, COVINGTON &
BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BRANCH, Jacob A.
Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. &Richard Talbot Seymour, LAW
OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
J. B. BLACK, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman, COVINGTON &
BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BRANCH, Jacob A.
Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. & Richard Talbot Seymour,
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
LUCIOUS ABRAMS, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
BRANCH, Jacob A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P., Richard
Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C. &
William Harold Dowdy, WILLIAM H. DOWDY ATTORNEY AT LAW
GRIFFIN TOOD, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
BRANCH, Jacob A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. &Richard
Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
GREGORY ERVES, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BRANCH, Jacob
A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. &Richard Talbot Seymour,
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
CECIL BREWINGTON, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
BRANCH, Jacob A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P., Richard
Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C. &
William Harold Dowdy, WILLIAM H. DOWDY ATTORNEY AT LAW
HERBERT L. SKINNER, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman,
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
BRANCH, Jacob A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. & Richard
Talbot Seymour, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
OBIE L. BEAL, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman, COVINGTON
& BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BRANCH, Jacob
A. Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. &Richard Talbot Seymour,
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
CLIFFORD LOVETT, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byAnthony Herman, COVINGTON &
BURLING LLP, David A. Branch, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BRANCH,Jacob A.
Stein, STEIN, MITCHELL & MUSE, L.L.P. & Richard Talbot Seymour,
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C.
ANTONIO SANTOS, Movant, represented by Gerard Robert Lear, SPEISER
KRAUSE
CLINTON R. MARTIN, Movant, represented by Gerard Robert Lear,
SPEISER KRAUSE
CURTIS DIXON, Movant, Pro Se
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Settles Class Action Over Digital Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that an
important chapter in the legal history of the music business may
be coming to conclusion soon as Universal Music Group is close to
submitting a settlement resolving claims that it cheated recording
artists of royalties from digital downloads.
The putative class action from artists including Chuck D. of
Public Enemy, Rick James (by way of trust), Dave Mason of Traffic,
Whitesnake, Andres Titus of Black Sheep, Ron Tyson of The
Temptations, among others, alleges that record labels should be
treating digital download income off of venues like Apple's iTunes
as "licenses" rather than "sales." By accounting the other way,
the artists get about 15 percent of collected income rather than
50 percent they allege is due.
Attorneys for UMG and the recording artists have been directed by
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston to submit a motion to approve a
settlement by April 10. There's still some finishing touches and
approvals needing to be done, say sources, but the parties have
advanced far enough to have that date targeted on the calendar.
In the meantime, the judge is terminating UMG's summary judgment
motions that presented various arguments against the claims
including that the recording artists were on notice about how it
was calculating royalties since 2002.
The monetary value of UMG's coming settlement haven't yet been
disclosed, but The Hollywood Reporter has learned that it will
likely cover EMI, which was acquired by UMG in 2012 and has been
dealing with its own litigation on the digital download front.
Following settlements by Warner Music and Sony, UMG's deal if
approved would mean that all of the record majors have resolved
claims following the 2010 appellate ruling in F.B.T. Productions
v. Aftermath -- dealing with Eminem songs -- which suggested that
"licenses" rather than "sales" were the more appropriate
accounting treatment in an era where record labels no longer spend
huge amounts on packaging physical CDs.
According to sales data released by the RIAA, digital downloads is
the top revenue producer in the music industry. Download sales
are at $2.64 billion, which beats physical music sales of $2.27
billion. However, consumers are buying less from digital outlets
like iTunes than they once did. Digital download sales are down
9.5 percent in the past year as streaming income has surged nearly
29 percent to $1.87 billion.
As streaming gets closer to dominating downloads, the litigation
may shift likewise as well.
The digital downloads cases may be on the precipices of
conclusion, but scrutiny may follow as to whether record labels
are cheating artists on money collected from outlets like Spotify.
For instance, on March 17, a judge refused to reject claims that
Sony breached agreements and good faith dealing with 19 Recordings
-- the label of former American Idol contestants Kelly Clarkson,
Carrie Underwood and Jordin Sparks -- by allegedly
mischaracterizing income from streaming services as as "sales" or
"distributions" rather than as "broadcasts" or "transmissions."
UMG, represented by Jeffrey Goldman -- JGoldman@jmbm.com -- at
Jeffer Mangels, declined to comment. The plaintiffs are being
represented by many law firms including lead counsel Leonard
Simon.
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Vertex
Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Tactical Advantage Group, LLC and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-11517 (D. Mass., April 6, 2015),
seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited fax advertisements.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated owns and operates a
pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business in
Boston, Massachusetts.
Tactical Advantage Group, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New
Jersey. It is engaged in the business of providing management
consulting services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan L. Cantor, Esq.
SWARTZ & SWARTZ
Ten Marshall Street
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 742-1900
Facsimile: (617) 367-7193
E-mail: acantor@swartzlaw.com
- and -
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: BWanca@andersonwanca.com
RKelly@andersonwanca.com
VIACOM INC: Defends $7.2MM Intern Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that after Viacom
Inc. agreed in February to resolve wage claims lodged by former
unpaid interns, we asked whether the deal really added up to the
$7.2 million settlement value cited by the plaintiffs. The judge
presiding over the case also raised questions about the agreement,
and now the lawyers on both sides of the case are insisting the
deal warrants approval.
In a pair of letters on April 3 to U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel
Gorenstein in Manhattan, Viacom's defense lawyers at Davis Wright
Tremaine and counsel for the plaintiffs at Virginia & Ambinder
argued that the settlement, first proposed on March 11, is fair on
multiple fronts.
The proposed deal provides for payments to a class that's
estimated to include 12,500 former Viacom interns. The company
would pay $505 to each eligible class member who puts in a claim,
and another $505 for interns who spent at least three weeks of a
second semester with Viacom.
The agreement also included a kill-switch provision, however,
allowing Viacom to opt out of the deal if the number of claims
exceeds 2,480. If Viacom did invoke that provision, the case
would revert back to active litigation, according to court papers.
Counsel for the plaintiffs at Virginia & Ambinder and Leeds Brown
Law would receive $900,000 from Viacom under the proposed
settlement agreement, regardless of the number of claims paid.
In their letter on April 3 -- which came in response to questions
the magistrate judge raised at a March 13 teleconference --
defense lawyers led by Davis Wright's Lyle Zuckerman --
lylezuckerman@dwt.com -- and Michael Goettig wrote that the
proposed settlement terms "are eminently fair and reasonable."
The interns would have faced an uphill battle in securing class or
collective action status, Viacom argued, and $505-per-semester is
a fair payout considering the additional educational and career
benefits of Viacom's internship program. Viacom also elaborated
on the termination provision in the agreement, writing that it was
rational to preserve the option to back out since the company
continues to believe it has strong legal defenses.
Viacom also addressed the judge's concerns about the timing of the
agreement, which comes as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit considers whether former interns should be allowed to
bring wage cases.
The company urged Judge Gorenstein not to wait for the Second
Circuit to act before considering the Viacom settlement. Doing
so, they wrote, would be tantamount to giving courts "endless
opportunity to Monday-morning quarterback the parties' decisions."
In a separate letter on April 3, Lloyd Ambinder of Virginia &
Ambinder wrote that additional concerns raised by the judge
related to attorney fees stemmed from a "drafting error" in the
original Viacom agreement that had since been corrected.
Viacom agreed to pay $900,000 to cover the plaintiffs lawyers'
fees and costs, subject to court approval. But the initial
wording of the agreement stated that if the court ultimately
approved a lower fee award, the remainder would revert to Viacom.
Mr. Ambinder wrote on April 3 that, in a revised agreement, any
leftover funds from the $900,000 would go to the class or would be
donated by Viacom to The Legal Aid Society in New York City.
Mr. Zuckerman on April 6 referred us to Viacom spokesman Jeremy
Zweig, who declined to comment beyond the company's court filing.
Ambinder wasn't immediately available to comment.
VIBRATION MONITORING: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrod Jay Reed, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vibration Monitoring Service LLC, Case No.
9:15-cv-00049 (E.D. Tex., April 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours a week.
Vibration Monitoring Service LLC is a seismic monitoring service
company, headquartered at 615 North Washington Avenue, Livingston,
Texas 77351.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
Melissa Ann Moore, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
440 Louisiana, Ste 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
melissa@mooreandassociates.net
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Redline Labeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
Adam Mirabella and Kristen Arrendell filed a federal suit in 2012
against Weston-based Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc., doing business as
VPX, which manufactures energy supplements under the Redline
brand.
The pair said Redline drinks sent them to emergency rooms with
accelerated heart rates, chest pains and other symptoms.
But defense lawyers say a few minutes of browsing Facebook and
other social media sites uncovered posts by Mr. Mirabella bragging
about ecstasy use and attending raucous raves, while
Ms. Arrendell's updates showed a history of medical frailty.
The plaintiffs said VPX's marketing material used inadequate
labelling and misleading references to university studies to pitch
the drinks as a safe way to increase mental focus and reaction
time.
But instead of providing a rush of energy, they said the drinks
sent them to the emergency room with chills, excessive sweating,
vomiting, convulsions, chest pain and rapid heartbeat.
Their complaint included a report from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Adverse Event Reporting System, which collects post-market reports
from consumers about symptoms and medical outcomes. It shows 10
reports from January 2005 to August 2008 linking Redline to chest
pain, tremors, confusion, elevated blood pressure and nausea.
Mr. Mirabella and Ms. Arrendell said they paid a premium price for
a dangerous product. They demanded a jury trial and charged VPX
with unjust enrichment, violations of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act on
consumer products.
"This is an economic consumer protection action, not a personal
injury claim," the pair said in a complaint seeking equitable
relief and economic damages, not tort relief, before U.S. District
Judge William Zloch in Fort Lauderdale.
Instead of personal injury damages, they wanted a refund for
themselves and everyone else who'd purchased Redline products,
exposing VPX to an initial demand of $100 million, attorneys said.
Social Media Sleuth
But the manufacturer's attorney bolstered his case by painting a
picture of two unreliable plaintiffs.
Scott Knapp -- sknapp@broadandcassel.com -- a partner in Broad and
Cassel's Fort Lauderdale office, said Mr. Mirabella's public
Facebook page was "littered with molly" or MDMA references.
"Adam had a heart murmur. He also admitted that he was a regular
user of ecstasy," Mr. Knapp said.
Ms. Arrendell's postings, meanwhile, showed a history of medical
problems and a fundraising benefit to cover extensive expenses,
Mr. Knapp said.
VPX used the social media posts to support its arguments that
Redline did not injure Mr. Mirabella and Ms. Arrendell and the
plaintiffs weren't good class representatives.
VPX recruited Mr. Knapp after the plaintiffs moved for class
certification.
The case pitted him against plaintiffs attorneys Joshua Eggnatz,
Michael Pascucci and Benjamin Lopatin of Eggnatz Lopatin &
Pascucci in Davie and San Francisco.
"I'm not surprised that those are the kind of things the other
side would talk about. We disagree about any alleged drug use and
pre-existing medical issues," said Mr. Eggnatz, a partner at
Eggnatz Lopatin. "There was no court ruling by the judge saying
that this information was admissible. We believe that if it went
to trial, it would not have been admissible because this is not a
personal injury case. Regardless of whether the purchaser had any
physical injury, the product was still wrongfully labelled."
$5.49 Settlement
In February, Judge Zloch denied class certification, ruling
Mirabella and Arrendell did not meet their burden to successfully
define the group of potential plaintiffs they sought to represent.
The plaintiffs sought to sue on behalf of all Redline consumers
from 2008 to 2012, the period allowed by the four-year statute of
limitations. They didn't identify consumers of the products sold
largely through convenience stores and other retailers and could
not pin down purchase prices.
After the judge denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration, the groups reached a settlement March 16 with VPX
admitting no liability.
The settlement provided $2.50 for Mirabella and $2.99 for
Arrendell -- reimbursement for the purchase price of one Redline
Xtreme drink -- plus interest from the date of purchase through
March 6. The agreement required each party to cover its own legal
fees and costs.
Mr. Knapp also used social media to link the Eggnatz attorneys to
a similar class action filed in Massachusetts against VPX.
Mr. Knapp successfully argued the Florida case, which sought to
form a national class, made the Massachusetts case superfluous. It
also settled for purchase prices, bringing the combined settlement
value to about $15.
"This outcome proves that one need not file a lawsuit and spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars to simply report displeasure,"
said VPX Sports CEO Jack Owoc.
WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Luster" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Luster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01058 (N.D. Ga., April 8, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of initiating non-emergency telephone calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular telephone
numbers without the prior express consent of the subscribers.
Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc. is a California corporation that
is a provider of auto finance services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Feagle, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Telephone: (404) 373-1970
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Skaar, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
krisskaar@aol.com
WESTERN RESERVE: "White" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marlon White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Western Reserve Medtec Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-
cv-00918 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.
Western Reserve Medtec Services, LLC is a medical services company
that regularly transacts business in Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
Melissa Moore, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
Houston, TX 77002-1637
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
melissa@mooreandassociates.net
WINE GROUP: Burg Simpson Files Class Action Over Arsenic in Wines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C. on March 19 disclosed
that it has filed a consumer class action (Case Number BC576061)
in Los Angeles, California alleging that 83 different wines
produced in California contain levels of inorganic arsenic that
significantly exceed the level found to be acceptable by
California, in some instances over five times the safe threshold.
The lawsuit, filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court on
March 19, 2015 under case number BC576061, alleges that dozens of
wineries are violating California state law by knowingly
producing, marketing and selling wines that contain dangerous
levels of inorganic arsenic, and are failing to warn consumers
about the potential danger. CBS Today aired the story the morning
of March 19. See http://is.gd/c59lhQ
The class action complaint also alleges that the 28 California
defendant wineries "produce and market wines that contain
dangerously high levels of inorganic arsenic, in some cases up to
500% or more than what is considered the maximum acceptable safe
daily intake limit." Medical experts say the risks of arsenic
exposure allegedly include cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular
ailments (Case #BC576061; pg 17).
Some of the popular wine brands named in the lawsuit include
Franzia, Menage a Trois, Sutter Home, Wine Cube, Charles Shaw,
Glen Ellen, Cupcake, Beringer and Vendage. The wines named in the
lawsuit are primarily inexpensive white or blush varietals
including Moscato, Pinot Grigio and Sauvignon Blanc.
"This is an important case to protect consumer health and safety,
which Burg Simpson is proud to be leading," said Burg Simpson
founding shareholder, Michael Burg. Burg Simpson is leading the
lawsuit, which was filed on March 19, with two other law firms.
The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of California
consumers who purchased the wine in the last four years.
Find more information at http://www.burgsimpson.com/tainted-wine
A copy of the complaint is available at http://is.gd/8lyDe9
YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeramy J. Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-00163 (S.D. Tex., April 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours in a week.
Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, LLC is a Texas Limited Liability
Company owns and operates an oil and gas production facilities.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEF FRANZ BUENKER
2030 North Loop W, Suite 120
Houston, TX 77018
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
YORKVILLE ADVISORS: Wins $22,000 Attorneys' Fees in SEC Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman of the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in the
case SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. YORKVILLE
ADVISORS, LLC, MARK ANGELO and EDWARD SCHINIK, Defendants, NO. 12
CIV. 7728 (GBD)(HBP) (S.D.N.Y.)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) commenced an action
alleging, among other things, that defendants had engaged in a
fraudulent scheme pursuant to which they reported false and
inflated values for certain convertible debentures, convertible
preferred stock, and promissory note investments held by the hedge
funds managed by Yorkville Advisors, LLC (Yorkville) and made
other materially false and misleading statements to investors and
potential investors about Yorkville.
On January 27, 2014, after an exchange of letters and a discovery
conference regarding the adequacy of the SEC's privilege logs
produced in response to defendants' First Request for the
Production of Documents, the defendants filed a motion to compel.
Defendants' counsel seek attorneys' fees in the amount of
$95,736.50 and costs in the amount of $454.45 in connection with
their motion to compel.
Magistrate B. Pitman awarded defendants' counsel $21,619.63 in
attorneys' fees and $431.73 in costs, for a total of $22,051.36.
A copy of Magistrate Judge Pitman's opinion and order dated
February 27, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/74rWPhfrom
Leagle.com
Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff, represented by:
Todd Daniel Brody, Esq.
Bruce Karpati, Esq.
Stephen Bruce Holden, Esq.
Valerie Ann Szczepanik, Esq.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commisison
Brookfield Place
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, NY 10281-1022
Telephone: 212-336-1100
Email: newyork@sec.gov
Defendants, represented by Caryn Gail Schechtman --
caryn.schechtman@dlapiper.com -- John Vukelj --
john.vukelj@dlapiper.com -- Nicolas Morgan -- Patrick O Hunnius --
patrick.hunnius@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP
ZILLOW INC: Judge Tosses $5-Million Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Michael Lipkin, Daniel Siegal and Ben James, writing
for Law360, report that a California federal judge on March 19
scrapped a $5 million putative class action accusing online real
estate marketplace Zillow Inc. of shorting sales representatives
on overtime pay, saying allegations fell short of standards set by
the Ninth Circuit's 2014 Landers ruling.
Granting Zillow's motion to dismiss -- but without prejudice --
U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton found the plaintiff didn't
allege at least one workweek where he worked 40-plus hours and
wasn't paid for the excess hours, as required under the Ninth
Circuit's ruling late last year in Landers v. Quality
Communications Inc.
Plaintiff Ian Freeman, a former inside sales consultant, claimed
Zillow's timekeeping system automatically logged employees as
working from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. every day, even if they worked
overtime or skipped breaks. Zillow's workload also required them
to start early and stay well past 4 p.m., according to the
November suit.
However, Judge Staton determined that the complaint only contended
that Zillow's policies may have caused his workday to exceed eight
hours.
"Plaintiff's allegations 'raise the possibility of
undercompensation . . . a possibility is not the same as a
plausibility,'" the judge wrote, quoting the Ninth Circuit's
Landers ruling.
The November 2014 decision in Landers affirmed the dismissal of
Greg Landers' suit against his former employer Quality
Communications, and in a matter of first impression, the Ninth
Circuit designated the level of specificity needed to state a
claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the wake of Twombly
and Iqbal.
The instant suit claimed sales representatives like Mr. Freeman
are placed in a call pit where supervisors take away their chairs
during some hours in an attempt to improve performance. Workers
allegedly face intense pressure to make sales and are intimidated
into working through meal or rest breaks without pay.
Zillow's internal system doesn't allow workers to log additional
hours, but automatically deducts meals or rest breaks from
workers' hours, the suit stated. Workers are allegedly forced to
clock out for breaks even when they're forced to work through them
or stay on site.
Judge Staton on March 19 decided Mr. Freeman's allegations that
Zillow failed to provide him with meal and rest breaks in
violation of California labor laws failed for the same reason as
his overtime claim fell short: Freeman didn't allege at least one
meal or rest break where he worked through the break and wasn't
paid for the time.
The judge said the additional four claims of unpaid wages, waiting
time penalties, failure to provide itemized wage statements and
unfair business practices hinged on the other two claims. She
thus dismissed them as well.
Mark J. Geragos of Geragos & Geragos PC, which is representing
Mr. Freeman, told Law360 on March 19 that the order was helpful
and that they will be filing an amended complaint shortly.
"Zillow will be held accountable," Mr. Geragos said.
A Zillow spokesman said in a statement provided to Law360 on
March 19 that they "are pleased that the court granted Zillow's
motion to dismiss after reviewing the full context of the
allegations in the plaintiff's complaint."
Mr. Freeman's lawyers are representing another sales consultant's
suit against Zillow, accusing the company of retaliating against
him after he uncovered several schemes to defraud consumers.
Ashley Boehler alleged he discovered credit card fraud, forged
contracts and unlicensed real estate agents consulting with Zillow
clients.
After a California federal judge dismissed claims alleging
retaliation, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, Mr. Boehler filed an amended version of the suit earlier
in March.
Mr. Freeman is represented by Mark J. Geragos, Ben J. Meiselas,
Greg Kirakosian and Tyler M. Ross of Geragos & Geragos PC, and
Bobby Samini, Nicole Prado and Matthew M. Hoesly of Samini
Scheinberg PC.
Zillow is represented by Brooke Taylor --
BTaylor@susmangodfrey.com -- Steven G. Sklaver --
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- Amanda Bonn, Davida Brook and Ravi
Doshi of Susman Godfrey LLP.
The case is Ian Freeman v. Zillow Inc. et al., case number 8:14-
cv-01843, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
*********
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 * * *