/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150430.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 86 Headlines 2C COMMERCIAL: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages A10 NETWORKS: Has Issued False & Misleading Statements, Suit Says ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hearing Held to Approve Deal in Pacchia Case ALORICA INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims AMC NETWORK: Court Directs Class to Amend "Austin-Spearman" Suit AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chemical Spill Suit Denied ADT CORPORATION: Sued Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices AG PROFESSIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers Due to Electrocution Hazard ALBERT AND CAROL: M.D. Pa. Judge Allows Case to be Remanded AMAZON.COM INC: "Chavez" Class Suit Challenges Wage Deductions ATLAS PIPELINE: Defendants in Consolidated ATLS Suit Reached Deal AUTOMOTIVE FLEETSERVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Sued by Futures Traders for Operating FX Cartel BANGKOK CAFE: "Contreras" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime BARRICK GOLD: Judge Narrows Securities Suit; May 4 Conference Set BLUE CROSS: Court Okays Class Action Deal in Shane Group Case BOCK EVANS: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over High Risk Investment Practices BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Claim Barred by Statute of Limitations BUCKLEY'S GREAT: Judge Won't Certify Class in "Foley" Suit CACH LLC: Judge Finally Certifies "Morris" Case as Class Action CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Ask 2nd Circuit for Re-Hearing CIGNA CORP: Franco Plaintiffs Appeal District Court Decisions CIVIA CYCLES: Recalls Hyland Bicycles and Aluminum Fenders COMCAST CORP: Settlement in Philadelphia Cluster Case Okayed COMCAST CORP: Refiled Motion to Compel Arbitration CONSECO INC: Did Not Breach Insurance Policies, Court Says COOK COUNTY, IL: Judge Denies Inmate's Preliminary Injunction Bid CYCLE GEAR: Recalls Wheelies Semi-Truck Due to Lead DEVERE CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages DRAFTKINGS INC: Sued Over Misleading Advertisement Campaign ECOLOGICAL PAPER: Faces "Kinlock" Suit over Failure to Pay OT EDUCATION SERVICE: Faces "Blanton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT EURO-PRO OPERATING: Recalls Upright Vacuum Cleaners EVERYBODY FITNESS: Ohio Appeals Court Trims "Brogley" Suit FACEBOOK INC: Sued Over Illegal Use of Members' Biometric Info FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports GENA ACCESSORIES: Recalls Silk Scarves Due to Burn Hazard GEORGIA: Appeals Court Revives Unit Cerebral Palsy Suit GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: 15 Class Suits on Avandia Pending in Canada GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: 3 Paxil Trials Scheduled in 2015 GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Trial in Canada Paxil Case in Oct. 2016 GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: No Trials This Year "Acts of Violence" Case GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: LAA Discharged Public Certificate GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Poligrip Claims Still Pending GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Pretrial Activities Continue in Avandia Case GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Resolved Native American Tribes Suits GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Claims re Paxil Purchases by Minors Pending GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Lamictal Indirect Purchase Suit Suspended GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Dispositive Bids Due in Wellbutrin XL Case GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: August 2015Trial in Remaining Stiefel Case GOOCHIE GOO: Recalls Sensory Blankets Due to Laceration Hazard GORSUCH LTD: Recalls Ertlrenz Ski Boot Liners Due to Fire Hazard HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums HONEY SOLUTIONS: Importers and Suppliers Earn Sweet Dismissal INTERTHINX INC: Faces "Weber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime J. CREW: Recalls Baby Coveralls Due to Choking Hazard J&K ADMINISTRATIVE: Judge Won't Allow Separate Arbitrations JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Finance Charge KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Judgment KIND LLC: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Product Misbranding LAND OF LINCOLN: Overcharges for Health Insurance, Ill. Suit Says LENOVO INC: Recalls Notebook Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard LINCOLN NATIONAL: Appeals in "Bezich" Case Pending LINCOLN NATIONAL: Defending Action by Lehman Special Financing LMS INTELLIBOUND: "Kutzback" Case Wins Conditional Certification MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports MAIL MEDIA: Faces "Forbes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wins Prelim. OK of M273 Engine Gears Suit Deal MERCADOLIBRE INC: Filed Defense in Class Action MERCHANT FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pearl" Suit Says MERRILL LYNCH: Sued Over Former Employee Plan Account Balances METLIFE INC: Continues to Face Westland Police Action METLIFE INC: Continues to Face Birmingham Retirement Action METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appealed to Ninth Circuit METLIFE INC: MLIC Moved to Dismiss "Owens" Action METLIFE INC: Fauley Court Will Hold Final Approval Hearing METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Robainas" and IAMAW Actions METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Intoccia" Suit Over Shadow Insurance MICHIGAN: Judge Won't Transfer Prisoner to New Facility MINISTRY HEALTH: June 12 Fairness Hearing on "Dexter" Accord NEW BUBBLE: Faces "Carillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NEW JERSEY DEVILS: Restrains Sale of Game Tickets, Suit Claims NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GeForce GTX 970, Suit Claims OMAHA, NE: Judge Strikes Down "Swift" Plaintiff's Motions OWT INDUSTRIES: Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums Due to Burn Risk PETSMART INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Blind-Accessible POS PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Setback in Two Tobacco Cases in Florida PLATINUM COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages POLYCOM INC: Securities Complaint Must Be Amended, Court Rules PRECISION OPINION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Christopherson" Suit Over Data Breach PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Flushes Bid to Dismiss "Belfiore" Suit S & K EXPRESS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SAFI-G INC: Faces "Velasquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SNACK FACTORY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Seidman" Suit SAN PEDRO MANUFACTURING: Recalls Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard SCIARETTI SITE: "Pierce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SMITH & NEPHEW: Court Gives Patient Chance to Re-Plead Claims SONORA QUEST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Shields" Suit Claims ST. TAMMANY: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages STRIPE A ZONE: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SUMO JAPANESE: "Mayfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Entered Into MOU in BB&T Merger Action SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Named SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Preliminary Motions Pending in LBSF Case SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Filed Answer in "Struett" Class Action TEXTRON INC: Ohio Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss UAW Suit TIME WARNER: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Action Claims TOMMIE COPPER: Falsely Marketed Copper Apparels, Suit Says TORO COMPANY: Recalls Powers Mowers Due to Injury Hazard TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Trek Bicycles Due to Injury Risk TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Missouri Case Entered Into MOU TURNEY BROS: Faces "Burd' Suit Over Failure to Give Layoff Notice UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Refuses to Junk "Alexander" Class Suit UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Lawsuit by VA Workers UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Sued for Charging High Electricity Premium Rate WATERLOO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Bike Hooks WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cross" Suit Claims WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Murray' Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Viking VI Models Due to Injury Hazard ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settled Meridian Funds Case ********* 2C COMMERCIAL: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 2C Commercial Services, LLC and Casey Huff, Case No. 4:15-cv-01035 (S.D. Tex., April 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operates a landscaping company doing business within the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef Franz Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop W, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com A10 NETWORKS: Has Issued False & Misleading Statements, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that A10 Networks stock sank from $15 a share at its IPO to $4.33 when its false and misleading statements were revealed, shareholders claim in Santa Clara County Court. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Hearing Held to Approve Deal in Pacchia Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery was to hold a hearing on March 4, 2015, to consider approval of the Stipulation in the Pacchia matter, Activision Blizzard, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. "On August 14, 2013, we received a letter dated August 9, 2013, from a shareholder seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company to ascertain whether the Purchase Transaction and Private Sale were in the best interests of the Company. In response to that request, we provided the stockholder with certain materials under a confidentiality agreement," the Company said. "On September 11, 2013, a complaint was filed under seal by the same stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in an action captioned Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No. 8884- VCL. A public version of that complaint was filed on September 16, 2013. The allegations in the complaint were substantially similar to the allegations in the above referenced matter filed on August 1, 2013. On October 25, 2013, Pacchia filed an amended complaint under seal. The amended complaint added claims on behalf of an alleged class of Activision stockholders other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Vivendi, ASAC, investors in ASAC and other stockholders affiliated with the investors of ASAC. The added class claims are against the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, the Vivendi affiliated directors, the members of the special committee of the Board of Directors formed in connection with the Company's consideration of the transactions with Vivendi and ASAC, and Vivendi for breach of fiduciary duty, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against ASAC. The amended complaint removed the derivative claims for waste of corporate assets and disgorgement but continued to allege derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a class, damages, reformation of the Private Sale, and disgorgement of any alleged profits received by the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and ASAC. On October 29, 2013, Pacchia filed a motion to consolidate the Pacchia case with the Hayes case. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013. On December 3, 2013, the court selected Pacchia as lead plaintiff. Pacchia filed a second amended complaint on December 11, 2013, and Activision filed an answer on January 31, 2014. Also on January 31, 2014, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly, Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. On February 21, 2014, Pacchia filed a third amended complaint under seal. In response to Pacchia's filing of a third amended complaint, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly, Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the third amended complaint. On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied the defendants' motions to dismiss such claims, with the exception of a breach of contract claim. Subsequently, Pacchia filed a fourth amended complaint containing substantially all of his prior claims, but with the addition of new allegations gleaned from discovery in the matter. ASAC filed a motion to dismiss the re-pleaded breach of contract claim and the other defendants filed answers in response to the fourth amended complaint. On September 11, 2013, another stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL. The complaint names our Board of Directors, Vivendi, New VH, the ASAC Entities, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. ("Davis") and Fidelity Management & Research Co. ("FMR") as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. "The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation by failing to submit the matters contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement for approval by a majority of our stockholders (other than Vivendi and its controlled affiliates); that our Board of Directors committed breaches of their fiduciary duties in approving the Stock Purchase Agreement; that Vivendi violated fiduciary duties owed to other stockholders of the Company in entering into the Stock Purchase Agreement; that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman usurped a corporate opportunity from the Company; that our Board of Directors and Vivendi have engaged in actions to entrench our Board of Directors and officers in their offices; that the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and Vivendi; and that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR will be unjustly enriched through the Private Sale. "The complaint seeks, among other things, the rescission of the Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to the Company of all or part of the shares that are the subject of the Private Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or mitigate the alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an order requiring our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge to the Company the amounts by which they have allegedly been unjustly enriched; and alleged damages sustained by the class and the Company. In addition, the stockholder sought a temporary restraining order preventing the defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without stockholder approval. "Following a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued a preliminary injunction order, enjoining the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement pending (a) the issuance of a final decision after a trial on the merits; (b) receipt of a favorable Activision Blizzard stockholder vote on the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement under Section 9.1(b) of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or (c) modification of such preliminary injunction order by the Court of Chancery or the Delaware Supreme Court. "On September 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery certified its order issuing the preliminary injunction for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The defendants moved the Delaware Supreme Court to accept and hear the appeal on an expedited basis. On September 23, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Court of Chancery's decision and granted the defendant's motion to hear the appeal on an expedited basis. "Following a hearing on October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's order issuing a preliminary injunction, and determined that the Stock Purchase Agreement was not a merger, business combination or similar transaction that would require a vote of Activision's unaffiliated stockholders under the charter. "On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October 29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with the Pacchia case. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013. "Further, on September 18, 2013, the Company received a letter from another purported stockholder of the Company, Milton Pfeiffer, seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company to investigate potential wrongdoing or mismanagement in connection with the approval of the Stock Purchase Agreement. On November 11, 2013, Pfeiffer filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220 containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia and Miller. The Company answered on November 27, 2013. On January 21, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order of dismissal. "On December 17, 2013, the Company received a letter from Mark Benston requesting certain books and records of the Company pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Benston is represented by the same law firm as Pfeiffer. On January 2, 2014, Benston filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220 containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller. The Company answered on January 17, 2014. On February 14, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order of dismissal. "On March 14, 2014, Benston filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, captioned Benston v. Vivendi S.A. et al., No. 9447-VCL. The complaint makes claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller, but also adds J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as defendants and a so-called Brophy claim for insider trading against certain of the defendants. Benston and his attorneys petitioned the Court of Chancery to appoint them as co-lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel, respectively, for purposes of pursuing the Brophy claim as part of the consolidated Pacchia litigation. On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied Benston's motion for a leadership role in the consolidated Pacchia litigation. As a result, Pacchia continues to serve as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated cases. "Certain of defendants filed a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Pacchia obtained leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, which adds additional color to his allegations of wrongdoing based on information learned in discovery, including with respect to the appointment and subsequent election of several of the directors to our Board of Directors. For the most part, fact and expert discovery was completed in the Pacchia matter, including the exchange of expert damage and other reports. Pacchia's expert's reports allege damages to the Company in excess of $540 million and to the purported class in excess of $640 million, in addition to disgorgement claims, which could, in theory, exceed $1 billion. Defendants' experts' reports maintain there are no damages to the Company or to the purported class because the Purchase Transaction and the Private Sale were the best transactions available to the parties and the alternate transactions hypothesized by the plaintiff were inferior. "For the quarter ended September 30, 2014, we accrued a loss contingency in our consolidated financial statements in connection with this matter. The accrual related to potential liabilities associated with legal fees, costs and expenses for services already received prior to the quarter's end, where such fees, costs and expenses had not yet been paid at the quarter's end, and the Company's potential contribution toward the potential settlement of the matter. Although the Company has D&O insurance in connection with the consolidated litigation in a total amount up to $200 million, various insurers have raised arguments that they believe give them the right to deny coverage for a portion of these fees, costs and expenses, as well as for all or a portion of the ultimate liability which may occur in settlement or at trial. Under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and certain agreements with members of our Board of Directors, the Company has indemnification obligations to the director defendants to advance fees, costs and expenses and to pay liabilities which arise in connection with their service to the Company, in each case, to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware law. In light of these indemnification obligations and the positions taken by the parties and the various insurers, we determined that a liability was probable and estimable, and accordingly, an accrual was required, as of the quarter ended September 30, 2014. "On November 19, 2014, the Company announced that an agreement had been reached to settle the Pacchia matter. The Company believes the settlement agreement, which acknowledges no wrongdoing on the part of any party, is in the best interest of the Company and all of its shareholders. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, multiple insurance companies, along with various defendants, will pay $275 million to a settlement fund ("Settlement Fund"). Payment of reasonable and customary fees and costs of plaintiff's attorney, likely not to exceed $72.5 million, will be made from the Settlement Fund. The remaining balance of the Settlement Fund, likely to be at least $202.5 million, will be paid to the Company and will be recorded within "Shareholders' equity" in our consolidated balance sheet. "Other terms of the settlement agreement include the addition of two unaffiliated persons to the Company's Board of Directors, an adjustment of certain voting rights and a global release of claims against the defendants. On December 29, 2014, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K, describing and attaching the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement, which was filed with the Delaware Chancery Court with respect to the settlement of the Pacchia matter (the "Stipulation"). Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Company has notified the applicable shareholders of the settlement agreement. Applicable shareholders are provided an opportunity to object to the settlement, which is subject to approval by the Delaware Chancery Court. "Objections to the Stipulation have been filed by several shareholders. The plaintiff in the Hayes matter has objected to the settlement on the grounds that a portion of the $275 million Settlement Fund should be reallocated to the members of the class, that the amount of any attorney's fee award should be reduced and that the court should deny any "special award" to the plaintiff in the Pacchia matter. In the absence of such a reallocation, Hayes argues the court should deny approval of the settlement and appoint Hayes and his counsel to lead the class-based claims. Hayes also contends the notice of settlement provided by the Company is inadequate. The Company disputes this allegation. The plaintiffs in the Benston and Pfeiffer matters have also filed applications to the court requesting that their counsel receive an attorney's fee award of $7.25 million to be paid out of the attorneys' fees contemplated by the proposed Settlement. Certain defendants have also filed objections to the $50,000 "special award" requested by the Pacchia plaintiff. The Delaware Court of Chancery will hold a hearing on March 4, 2015, to consider the approval of the Stipulation, and a decision by the court is expected thereafter. "Since the Stipulation does not require the Company to pay any liability on behalf of its defendant directors, the Company has reversed the accrual described above as of December 31, 2014. The reversal of the accrual is partially offset by a new accrual for liabilities associated with legal fees, costs and expenses for services already received prior to the year's end, where such fees, costs and expenses had not yet been paid at the year's end. "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the possibility, that the Delaware Chancery Court does not approve the Stipulation, other potential outcomes are reasonably possible, including outcomes which could include an increase in the Company's liability. The Company believes the possibility that this lawsuit will have a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operation or liquidity is remote. However, if this assessment is incorrect, then an unfavorable resolution of this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operation or liquidity, particularly in the period in which any potential liabilities may be recognized. "We believe that the defendants have meritorious defenses. If the Delaware Chancery Court does not approve the Stipulation and the parties are not otherwise able to settle the matter subsequently, then we believe the defendants intend to defend the lawsuit and other related cases vigorously at trial. However, these lawsuits and any other lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual outcome and costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of litigation is necessarily uncertain, and the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these lawsuits and the Company and the defendants may not prevail. The Company also may be subject to additional claims in connection with the Purchase Transaction and Private Sale. Monitoring and defending against legal actions is time consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business." ALORICA INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ John R. Pickens, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alorica, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00622 (E.D. Cal., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to obtain class members' written authorization prior to procuring a consumer report for employment purposes. Alorica, Inc. is a California corporation that owns and operates call centers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lenden F. Webb, Esq. WEBB & BORDSON, APC A Professional Corporation 466 W. Fallbrook Ave., Suite 102 Telephone: (559) 431-4888 Facsimile: (559) 821-4500 E-mail: LWebb@WBLawGroup.com - and - Christopher A. Olsen, Esq. OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC A Professional Corporation 1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 550-9352 Facsimile: (619) 923-2747 E-mail: CAOlsen@CAOlsenLawOffices.com AMC NETWORK: Court Directs Class to Amend "Austin-Spearman" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class must amend claims that AMC Networks collects the viewing habits of those who visit its Web site, and illegally sends such personal information to Facebook, not a party to the lawsuit, which uses it for targeted ads, reports Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. The Lead Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Wurgaft, Esq. KRAVIS & FILE, P.C. 1 Meadowlands Plaza, Suite 200 East Rutherford, NY 07073 - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq. Alicia E. Hwang, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60655 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com bthomassen@edelson.com ahwang@edelson.com The Defendants are represented by: Sandra D. Hauser, Esq. Natalie J. Spears, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 768-6802 E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com natalie.spears@dentons.com The case is Ethel Austin-Spearman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMC Network Entertainment LLC, and AMC Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06840-NRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. AMERICAN WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chemical Spill Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. of the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston, denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case CRYSTAL GOOD, individually and as parent and next friend of minor children M.T.S., N.T.K. and A.M.S. and MELISSA JOHNSON, individually and as parent of her unborn child, MARY LACY and JOAN GREEN and JAMILA AISHA OLIVER, WENDY RENEE RUIZ and KIMBERLY OGIER and ROY J. McNEAL and GEORGIA HAMRA and MADDIE FIELDS and BRENDA BAISDEN, d/b/a FRIENDLY FACES DAYCARE, and ALADDIN RESTAURANT, INC., and R. G. GUNNOE FARMS LLC, and DUNBAR PLAZA, INC., d/b/a DUNBAR PLAZA HOTEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., and AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., and EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY and WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, d/b/a WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN WATER, and GARY SOUTHERN and DENNIS P. FARRELL, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-01374 (SDW Va.) Approximately 300,000 residents in the Charleston and surrounding area suffered an interruption in their water supply. The interruption was caused by a spill into the Elk River of a coal processing chemical mixture sold and distributed exclusively by Eastman Chemical Company. The mixture was at the time owned by and being stored in a facility owned and operated by Freedom Industries, Inc. Crude MCHM infiltrated the WV American water treatment plant in Charleston. Plaintiffs assert that the water company defendants could have prevented the incident with better precautions, regulatory compliance, and use of reasonable care. Plaintiffs allege in the first amended consolidated class action complaint that defendant American Water Works Company, Inc. (American) bears legal responsibility for the damages stemming from the contamination of the water supply. Its acts and omissions include its failure to require, capitalize, and fund the development of an alternate water supply and to properly oversee and manage its wholly owned and controlled subsidiaries, namely, West Virginia American Water American Water Works Service Company. American filed a motion to dismiss and challenges the exercise of personal jurisdiction. It asserts there is no basis for general jurisdiction. It also contends it has no contacts with West Virginia. American also asserts that plaintiffs cannot impute the West Virginia contacts of WV American to American unless they first allege facts sufficient to support piercing of the corporate veil. Judge Copenhaver denied defendants' motion to dismiss and of the expression that the forum has personal jurisdiction over American Water. A copy of Judge Copenhaver's memorandum opinion and order dated April 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/BamNmifrom Leagle.com Crystal Good, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON,Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON,Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT & D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE Melissa Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES,Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG,Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT T.A.J., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Joan Green, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Summer Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES,Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG,Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Mary Lacy, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Wendy Renee Ruiz, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Kimberly Ogier, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Roy J. McNeal, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Georgia Hamra, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES,Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG,Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Maddie Fields, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Brenda Baisden, 2:14-cv-11011, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG,Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON, Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT &David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY Aladdin Restaurant, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES,Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG,Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT R.G. Gunnoe Farms LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE,D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG, Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT Dunbar Plaza, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dunbar Plaza, Inc., Alexander D. McLaughlin, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, D. Christopher Hedges, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, David R. Barney, Jr., THOMPSON BARNEY, John Patrick L. Stephens, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Kevin W. Thompson, THOMPSON BARNEY, M. Timothy Koontz, Mark F. Underwood, UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES, Michael J. Del Giudice, CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON, Michael G. Stag, SMITH STAG, P. Rodney Jackson, LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON, Sean Cassidy, SMITH STAG,Stephen H. Wussow, SMITH STAG, Stuart Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE, Stuart H. Smith, SMITH STAG, Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO DELGIUDICE & LAFON & Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT American Water Works Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY,Alton Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY, Robert O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS, Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY & L. Jill McIntyre, JACKSON KELLY American Water Works Service Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY, Alton Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY, Robert O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS, Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY & L. Jill McIntyre, JACKSON KELLY Eastman Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Lance D. Leisure, BLANK ROME, Marc E. Williams, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Melissa Foster Bird, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Robert L. Massie, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH & Robert Scott, BLANK ROME West Virginia-American Water Company, 2:14-cv-11011, Defendant, represented by Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON KELLY, Alton Kent Mayo, BAKER BOTTS, Brian R. Swiger, JACKSON KELLY, L. Jill McIntyre, JACKSON KELLY, Laurie K. Miller, JACKSON KELLY, Robert O. Passmore, JACKSON KELLY, Steven L. Leifer, BAKER BOTTS & Thomas J. Hurney, Jr., JACKSON KELLY Gary Southern, 2:14-cv-11011, Defendant, represented by Erin J. Webb, KAY CASTO & CHANEY, Luci R. Wellborn, KAY CASTO & CHANEY, Pamela C. Deem, KAY CASTO & CHANEY & Robert B. Allen, KAY CASTO & CHANEY Dennis P. Farrell, Defendant, represented by David R. Pogue, CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER,Michael W. Carey, CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER & S. Benjamin Bryant, CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER ADT CORPORATION: Sued Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Barrett, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. The ADT Corporation f/k/a ADT Security Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01348-GCS-NMK (S.D. Ohio, April 21, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's unscrupulous telemarketing practices using a prerecorded messages. The ADT Corporation provides residential and small business electronic security, fire protection and other related alarm monitoring services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com - and - John W. Barrett, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 Facsimile: (508) 319-3077 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net - and - Alexander E. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com AG PROFESSIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers Due to Electrocution Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with AG Professional Hair Care Products Ltd., of Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 3,100 Sweet Heat Hair Dryers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The hair dryers do not have an immersion protection device, which guards against electrocution or shock if the dryer is immersed in water. This recall involves Sweet Heat handheld hair dryers. The hair dryers are white and have the words "Sweet Heat" printed in black near the blower nozzle. "AG Hair" is printed in grey and black on the back of the blower nozzle, above the handle. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/dMCjsj The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at ULTA Beauty and other beauty supply stores and hair salons nationwide from May 2013 through March 2015 for about $100. Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the recalled hair dryers and contact AG Hair to request a pre-paid mailing label and packaging in order to return the hair dryer for a full refund. ALBERT AND CAROL: M.D. Pa. Judge Allows Case to be Remanded ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the suit entitled NIGEL KING, BRANDON LEWIS, TAYLOR TRISCHETTA, and ERIC LEWIS Plaintiffs, v. ALBERT AND CAROL MUELLER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ALBERT MUELLER, CAROL MUELLER, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-1641 (M.D. Pa.) The defendants Albert Mueller, Carol Mueller, and the Albert and Carol Mueller Partnership (the Partnership) operate McDonald's franchises in Pennsylvania. The Partnership and JPMorgan Chase, N.A. (Chase) entered into a Card Issuance Agreement, through which the Mueller Defendants would be able to pay employees with payroll debit cards, or paycards, issued by Chase. A putative class filed a class action lawsuit against the Mueller defendants in July, 2013 in the Luzerne Court of Common Pleas, in which they allege a violation of Pennsylvania's Wage and Payment Law and Unjust Enrichment. Gunshannon, et al. v. Albert Mueller, et al., No. 2013-07010. On July 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their complaint for this case in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, approximately one year after Gunshannon. On August 22, 2014, the Mueller defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to CAFA. On August 28, 2014 Chase filed a joinder request describing additional grounds to support removal under CAFA. On August 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking remand to state court on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction under CAFA. Judge Mannion granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the suit to the state court. A copy of the Court's March 25, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/THTk15from Leagle.com Plaintiffs, represented by: David S. Senoff, Esq. Lauren C. Fantini, Esq. William R. Caroselli, Esq. CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & CONBOY LLC 20 Stanwix St, Seventh Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-567-21232 Facsimile: 412-391-7453 - and - Michael J. Cefalo, Esq. CEFALO & ASSOCIATES 309 Wyoming Avenue West Pittston, PA 18643 Telephone: 570-655-5555 Facsimile: 570-655-5100 Albert and Carol Mueller Limited Partnership, Albert Mueller and Carol Mueller, Defendants, represented by Matthew J Hank -- mhank@littler.com -- Rachel F. Satinsky -- rsatinsky@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C. - and - Daniel T. Brier, Esq. Nicholas F. Kravitz, Esq. MYERS, BRIER & KELLY, LLP 425 Spruce St, Suite 200 P.O. Box 551 Scranton, PA 18501 Telephone: 570-342-6100 Facsimile: 570-342-6147 JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendants, represented by Jamie S Dycus -- jamie.dycus@wilmerhale.com -- Joseph J Yu -- joseph.yu@wilmerhale.com -- Noah Adam Levine -- noah.levine@wilmerhale.com -- at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP; Patrick J. Boland, III -- pjboland@mdwcg.com -- at Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin AMAZON.COM INC: "Chavez" Class Suit Challenges Wage Deductions -------------------------------------------------------------- Amazon.com warehouse workers say in a class action that the company docks them 30 minutes of pay when crowds at the punch clock make them three minutes late, reports Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service. Hundreds of "pickers" and "packers" at Amazon's California warehouses are given a three-minute grace period when they start their shifts and after lunch breaks, but security checks and too few punch clocks regularly result in lost vacation time, smaller paychecks and termination, lead plaintiff Eric Chavez say in the April 6 complaint in Superior Court. "The trail of terminated employees is littered with those who simply could not make it to the clock, even if it was in eyeshot," Chavez says in the lawsuit. He claims that Amazon has "a uniform set of specific policies that impeded an employee's ability to timely clock in," and that, "despite all precautions, Chavez and hundred of other employees could not always clock in within the 3-minute 'grace' period." They have no choice but to clock in and work without pay for 26 minutes, "in order to please the employer and maintain their employment," Chavez says. Amazon calls its more than 50 U.S. warehouses "order fulfillment centers." Pickers and packers retrieve and package products for delivery. Chavez describes the work as "productive and labor- intense." He says that in a "typical scenario" of "wage theft," a worker might clock in more than three but less than 30 minutes late. If an employee is five minutes late to clock in for his or her shift and then five minutes late returning from the mandatory lunch break, he says Amazon's "punch-clock algorithm" would deduct 50 minutes for 10 minutes of missed work. To account for the logjam in security lines and at the punch clocks, and to avoid accumulating points toward automatic termination, Chavez says, "most employees arrived well before the start of their shifts, unpaid, and many left their breaks long before 30 minutes of duty-free break-time was provided." But even that, he says, does not always save them from the unfair deductions. Chavez claims that Amazon and its co-defendant subsidiary Golden State FC, which signs the paychecks, "often engage in a uniform set of specific policies that impeded an employee's ability to timely clock in, resulting in lost wages or non-compliant breaks without any fault on the part of the employee." He says it would be all right if Amazon used a point-based discipline system for employees who clock in after the three-minute grace period, but that California law does not allow a company to "also penalize employees by confiscating earned wages." He seeks class certification, restitution and damages for unfair and deceptive business practices and other labor law violations, including improper deductions from wages and forfeiture of unused vacation wages. The Plaintiffs is represented by: J. Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN, KHOURY & SINGER 605 "C" Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-5305 Telephone: (888) 808-8358 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com ATLAS PIPELINE: Defendants in Consolidated ATLS Suit Reached Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the defendants in the Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit reached an agreement with the plaintiffs regarding a settlement of that action. "On October 13, 2014, we announced the transactions (the "Merger") contemplated by the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") between Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC (our "General Partner"), Atlas Energy, L.P. ("ATLS"), Targa Resources Corp. ("TRC"), Targa Resources Partners LP ("TRP"), certain other parties and us. Concurrently with the Merger Agreement, ATLS announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with TRC, pursuant to which TRC agreed to acquire ATLS through a merger of a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of TRC with and into ATLS (the "ATLS Merger," and, together with the Merger, the "Atlas Mergers")," the Company said. "Following announcement of the Atlas Mergers, five (5) of our public unitholders filed putative class action lawsuits against us, the other parties to the Merger Agreement and certain of their managers. These lawsuits are styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma; (the "Tulsa Lawsuit") (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated APL Lawsuit"). The Tulsa Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on February 4, 2015. "Following announcement of the Atlas Mergers, two (2) public unitholders of ATLS also filed putative class action lawsuits against ATLS, ATLS Energy GP LLC, its managers, TRC and Trident GP Merger Sub LLC. These lawsuits are styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These lawsuits were consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit"), although the Kane lawsuit has since been voluntarily dismissed. "The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or contractual obligations by, among other things, failing to obtain sufficient value for the ATLS and our unitholders in, respectively, each of the ATLS Merger and the Merger, agreeing to certain terms in each of the merger agreements that allegedly restrict the defendants' ability to obtain a more favorable offer, favoring their self-interests over the interests of ATLS and our unitholders, and omitting material information from the Proxy Statements. The lawsuits further allege that those breaches were aided and abetted by some combination of ATLS, TRC, TRP, us or various affiliates of those entities named above. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, attorney's fees, other expenses, and costs. "Additionally, a putative stockholder class action and derivative lawsuit, captioned Inspired Investors v. Perkins et. al., Cause No. 2015-04961, was filed purportedly on behalf of TRC shareholders in the District Court of Harris County, Texas on January 28, 2015 and amended on February 23, 2015. The lawsuit names ATLS and the individual members of the board of directors of TRC as defendants and TRC as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving the ATLS Merger, omitting purportedly material information from the registration statement on Form S-4 that TRC initially filed with the SEC on November 20, 2014 and most recently amended on January 22, 2015. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, compensatory and rescissory damages, attorney's fees, interest and costs. "On February 9, 2015, the defendants in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit reached an agreement with the plaintiffs regarding a settlement of that action. That agreement is reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the terms of the parties' agreement to settle, dismiss and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, and is subject to court approval. Defendants agreed to the Memorandum of Understanding solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and without admitting or denying that further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The Memorandum of Understanding is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including judicial approval of the proposed settlement contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding, following notice to our unitholders. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve the settlement, that the settlement will not be terminated according to its terms, or that some unitholders will not opt-out of the settlement. "In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it is anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of all claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of our unitholders that they purport to represent challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to the Transactions, any actions, deliberations or negotiations in connection with the Transactions or any agreements, disclosures, or events related thereto, and that the Consolidated APL Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, in connection with the proposed settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, which the defendants may oppose. We or our successor will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the court. The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to our unitholders in connection with the Merger. "On February 9, 2015, the defendants in the Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit reached an agreement with the plaintiffs regarding a settlement of that action. That agreement is reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the terms of the parties' agreement to settle, dismiss and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit, and is subject to court approval. Defendants agreed to the Memorandum of Understanding solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and without admitting or denying that further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The Memorandum of Understanding is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including judicial approval of the proposed settlement contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding, following notice to ATLS unitholders. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve the settlement, that the settlement will not be terminated according to its terms, or that some unitholders will not opt-out of the settlement. "In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it is anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of all claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of ATLS unitholders that they purport to represent challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to the Transactions, any actions, deliberations or negotiations in connection with the Transactions or any agreements, disclosures, or events related thereto, and that the Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, in connection with the proposed settlement the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, which the defendants may oppose. ATLS or its successor will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the court. The settlement will not affect, among other things, the consideration to be paid to ATLS's unitholders in connection with the ATLS Merger." AUTOMOTIVE FLEETSERVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn M. Bradley, Brandon W. Glazner and Cody J. Paul v. Automotive Fleetserve, LLC, Fleetserve, LLC, Fleetserve One, LLC and Michael T. Curtis, Case No. 4:15-cv-00270 (E.D. Tex., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate as a single enterprise that provides on- site preventative maintenance services for heavy equipment including, but not limited to, oil and gas well equipment across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: James David Apple, Esq. APPLE & FINK LLP 735 Plaza Blvd, Ste 200 Coppell, TX 75019 Telephone: (972) 315-1900 Facsimile: (972) 315-1955 E-mail: jdapple@applefinklaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Sued by Futures Traders for Operating FX Cartel ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Barclays Bank and other banking giants operated a cartel to manipulate foreign-exchange rates for 12 years, in trillions of dollars of trades, a class of FX futures traders claims, echoing earlier claims. The case is Jeffrey & Kimberly Sterk; Michael Melissinos v. Bank of America Corp.; Barclays Bank PLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. BANGKOK CAFE: "Contreras" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Fabian Contreras and Jose Agustin Contreras, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated v. Bangkok Cafe, Inc., d/b/a Rohm Thai Restaurant and Anek Pooviriyakul, Case No. 1:15- cv-03088-GHW (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 27 East 201 Street, New York, NY 10003. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com BARRICK GOLD: Judge Narrows Securities Suit; May 4 Conference Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss in the case entitled IN RE BARRICK GOLD SECURITIES LITIGATION, NO. 13 CIV.3851 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.) Barrick Gold Corporation is one of the world's largest gold mining companies, with a business focus on growing its base of low-cost gold production and gold reserves. In 1994, Barrick acquired Pascua-Lama, an untapped gold mine spanning the border between Chile and Argentina. Lead plaintiffs Union Asset Management Holding AB and LRI Invest S.A. bring an action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Barrick, Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al- Joundi, Peter Kinver, Igor Gonzales, and George Potter and Sybil Veenman. The putative class consists of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Barrick common stock during the period May 7, 2009 through and including November 1, 2013 and who were allegedly damaged thereby. Plaintiffs assert three causes of action for: violations of Section 1O(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 1Ob-5 promulgated thereunder against Barrick; violations of Section 1O(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule I Ob-5 promulgated thereunder against the Individual Defendants; and violations of Section 20( a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants and Veenman. Plaintiffs allege four main categories of actionable misstatements: statements regarding cost and schedule including statements that Pascua-Lama was a low-cost project, statements regarding compliance with environmental regulations, statements regarding internal controls and accounting for capital costs, and statements concerning accounting for the project. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants now move to dismiss all claims. Judge Scheindlin granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss and a conference is scheduled for May 4, 2015 at 4:30 p.m. A copy of Judge Scheindlin's opinion and order dated April 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/UKesWlfrom Leagle.com Plaintiffs represented by, Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- David P. Abel, Esq. -- dabel@motleyrice.com -- James M. Hughes, Esq. -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- William H. Narwold, Esq. -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- at Motley Rice LLC; Jonathan M. Plasse, Esq. -- Serena Pia Hallowell, Esq. -- shallowell@labaton.com -- Christopher J. Keller, Esq. -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. -- jbernstein@labaton.com -- Jonathan Gardner, Esq. -- jgardner@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow; Brian P. Murray, Esq. -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Michael Goldberg, Esq. -- mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- Robert V. Prongay, Esq. -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP; Ira M. Press, Esq. -- ipress@kmllp.com -- at Kirby McInerney LLP; Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. -- jbarrack@barrack.com -- at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Defendants, represented by Ada Fernandez Johnson, Esq. -- afjohnso@debevoise.com -- Jonathan Rosser Tuttle, Esq. -- jrtuttle@debevoise.com -- Bruce E. Yannett, Esq. -- beyannet@debevoise.com -- Elliot Greenfield, Esq. -- egreenfi@debevoise.com -- at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP BLUE CROSS: Court Okays Class Action Deal in Shane Group Case ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Denise Page Hood of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division ruled on the parties' motions in the case THE SHANE GROUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant, CASE NO. 10-CV-14360 (E.D. Mich.) Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a Michigan nonprofit healthcare corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. Blue Cross provides, directly and through its subsidiaries, health insurance and administrative services, including preferred provider organization (PPO) health insurance products and health maintenance organization (HMO) health insurance products. On June 22, 2012, a Consolidated Class Action Amended Complaint was filed against Defendant alleging: Unlawful Agreement in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the Rule of Reason (Count I); Unlawful Agreements in Violation of Section 2 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, M.C.L. Section 445.772 (Count II). The class action seeks to recover overcharges paid by purchasers of Hospital Healthcare Services directly to hospitals in Michigan. The parties informed the court that they have resolved the issues before the court and after a hearing was held on the matter, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval to proposed class settlement on June 26, 2014. Timely objections to or letters regarding the proposed class action settlement were filed by John Kunitzer, Christopher Andrews, Scott Mancinelli and, ADAC Automotive and others 26 class members, represented by the Varnum law firm, seek to intervene for the limited purpose of unsealing records and adjourning the fairness hearing. Blue Cross and plaintiffs oppose the motion asserting that the motion to intervene is untimely and that the 26 class members have not shown they are entitled or required to review the sealed documents to evaluate whether the proposed settlement is fair. Certain Third-Party Hospitals and other organizations seek to intervene in order to respond in opposition to the 26 class members' motion to unseal certain records. Plaintiffs seek final approval of the settlement and plan allocation. Also before the court is class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and payment of incentive awards to class representatives. Judge Hood finds that the settlement and the plan of allocation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the interest of the class members. The motion for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and payment of incentive awards to class representative is granted. The motions to intervene for the Limited Purpose of Unsealing Records and Adjourning Fairness Hearing are denied while the motion for final approval of settlement and plan of allocation is granted. A copy of Judge Hood's opinion and order dated March 31, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/bHkzP2from Leagle.com. The Shane Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Casey A. Fry, Miller Law Firm, P.C., Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, Darryl Bressack, Fink + Associates Law, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Jennifer E. Frushour, Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer P.A., Mary Jane Fait, Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law Bradley A. Veneberg, Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Casey A. Fry, Miller Law Firm, P.C., Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, Darryl Bressack, Fink + Associates Law, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Jennifer E. Frushour, Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer P.A., Mary Jane Fait, Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law Scott Steele, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson L. Oliver Scott Steele, Plaintiff, represented by Anne T. Regan, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, David M. Cialkowski, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC, Erin C. Burns, NastLaw LLC, Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters Employee Benefits Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Bryan M. Beckerman, Novara, Tesija, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, Michael A. Novara, Novara, Tesija, Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm Abatement Workers National Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Bryan M. Beckerman, Novara, Tesija, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, Michael A. Novara, Novara, Tesija, Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm Monroe Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 671 Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Bryan M. Beckerman, Novara, Tesija, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel Small, Cohen, Milstein, Michael A. Novara, Novara, Tesija, Theodore Bell, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLC & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by Donald Bruce Hoffman, Hunton & Williams LLP, Michelle L. Alamo, Dickinson Wright, Michelle R. Heikka, Dickinson Wright, Patrick B. Green, Dickinson Wright, Robert A. Phillips, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Thomas G. McNeill, Dickinson Wright &Todd M. Stenerson, Hunton & Williams LLP Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by Donald Bruce Hoffman, Hunton & Williams LLP, Alan N. Harris, Bodman, Carl T. Rashid, Bodman PLC, Farayha J. Arrine, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Jason R. Gourley, Bodman LLP, Joseph A. Fink, Dickinson Wright, Michelle L. Alamo, Dickinson Wright, Michelle R. Heikka, Dickinson Wright, Patrick B. Green, Dickinson Wright, Robert A. Phillips, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Thomas G. McNeill, Dickinson Wright, Todd M. Stenerson, Hunton & Williams LLP, Donald Bruce Hoffman, Hunton & Williams LLP, Farayha J. Arrine, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Joseph A. Fink, Dickinson Wright, Michelle L. Alamo, Dickinson Wright, Michelle R. Heikka, Dickinson Wright, Patrick B. Green, Dickinson Wright, Robert A. Phillips, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Thomas G. McNeill, Dickinson Wright & Todd M. Stenerson, Hunton & Williams LLP Pontiac, City of, Interested Party, represented by Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Alyson Oliver, Interested Party, represented by Alyson L. Oliver Gratiot Community Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Metro Health, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP MidMichigan Health, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Marquette General Health System, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Ascension Health, Interested Party, represented by Jonathan F. Jorissen, Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco, Michael R. Shumaker, Jones Day & Thomas Demitrack, Jones Day Covenant Healthcare, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Sparrow Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Richard C. Kraus, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C. Munson Medical Center, Interested Party, represented by Richard C. Kraus, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C. United States of America, United States of America, Interested Party, represented by Ryan Danks, U.S. Department of Justice Pontiac, City of, Interested Party, represented by Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Bradley A. Veneberg, Interested Party, represented by E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer P.A. & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law The Shane Group, Inc., Interested Party, represented by E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer P.A. & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law Gratiot Community Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Metro Health, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP MidMichigan Health, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Marquette General Health System, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Ascension Health, Interested Party, represented by Michael R. Shumaker, Jones Day Covenant Healthcare, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP United States of America, Interested Party, represented by Ryan Danks, U.S. Department of Justice The Shane Group, Inc., Interested Party, represented by E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer P.A. & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law Bradley A. Veneberg, Interested Party, represented by E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, John E. Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer P.A. & David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law Pontiac, City of, Interested Party, represented by Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Alyson Oliver, Interested Party, represented by Alyson L. Oliver Gratiot Community Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Metro Health, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP MidMichigan Health, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Marquette General Health System, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Ascension Health, Interested Party, represented by Michael R. Shumaker, Jones Day Covenant Healthcare, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Borgess Medical Center, Interested Party, represented by Jonathan F. Jorissen, Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco & Thomas Demitrack, Jones Day United States of America, Interested Party, represented by Ryan Danks, U.S. Department of Justice Jeffrey Connolly, Interested Party, represented by Daniel J. McGlynn, McGlynn Associates, PLC Covenant Medical Center, Inc., Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Metropolitan Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP CHE Trinity, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Bronson Health Care Group, Inc., Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP University of Michigan Health System, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Prime Healthcare Services - Garden City, LLC, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP McLaren Health Care Corporation, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Health Alliance Plan of Michigan, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Alpena Regional Medical Center, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Caro Community Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Henry Ford Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Henry Ford Macomb Hospital Corporation, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Henry Ford Wyandotte Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Henry Ford Health System, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC National Surgical Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Oakwood Healthcare System, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Oakwood Annapolis Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Oakwood Heritage Hospital, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Oakwood Southshore Medical Center, Interested Party, represented by Noah S. Hurwitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC Charlevoix Area Hospital, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP DLP Marquette General Hospital, LLC, Interested Party, represented by David A. Ettinger, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn LLP Scott Mancinelli, Objector, Pro Se ADAC Automotive, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Alma Products Company, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Baker College, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Borroughs Corporation, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Eagle Alloy, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Fisher & Company, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Four Winds Casino Resort, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Gemini Group, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Gill-Roy's Hardware/Morgan Properties LLC, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Hi-Lex Corporation, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering. Huizenga Group, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Kent Companies, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering LaBelle Management, Incorporated, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Master Automatic Machine Company, Incorporated, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Petoskey Plastics, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering SAF-Holland USA, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Star of the West Milling Company, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Tarus Products, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Terryberry Company, LLC, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Thelen Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Trillium Staffing Solutions, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Truss Technologies, Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Wade Trim Group Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering. Morbark, Inc., Objector, represented by Bryan R. Walters, Varnum, Riddering Christopher Andrews, Objector, Pro Se Priority Health Insurance Company, Intervenor, represented by Brian J. Masternak, Warner, Norcross Spectrum Health Systems, Intervenor, represented by Brian J. Masternak, Warner, Norcross Holland Community Hospital, Intervenor, represented by Brian J. Masternak, Warner, Norcross & Katherine Lynn Pullen, Warner Norcross & Judd LLP UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Intervenor, represented by Iain R. McPhie, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP BOCK EVANS: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over High Risk Investment Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte B. Milliner, as trustee of the Charlotte B. Milliner Trust dated January 30, 1997, and as owner and holder of the Charlotte B. Milliner Sep Ira, Joanne Brem, as Trustee of the Van Santen-Brem Revocable Trust, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd., Case No. 3:15-cv-01763-LB (N.D. Cal., April 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for breach of its fiduciary duty of care, specifically by failing to diversify its clients' investment portfolio's by placing 100% or nearly 100% of their assets in high risk and highly speculative foreign mining stocks. Bock Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd. is a Registered Investment Advisor doing business in California with its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Sturgeon-Garcia. Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID STURGEON-GARCIA 1042 Country Club Drive, Suite 1A Moraga, CA 94556 Telephone: (925) 235-7290 Facsimile: (925) 235-7319 - and - Charles D. Marshall, Esq. MARSHALL LAW FIRM 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290 Walnut Creek, CA 92596 Telephone: (925) 575-7105 Facsimile: (855) 575-7105 E-mail: cdm@marshall-law-firm.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Claim Barred by Statute of Limitations --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case entitled IN RE: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO THE FOLLOWING CASE: Nancy B. Fleming & Gary Fleming v. Boston Scientific Corp., NO. 2:12-CV-5131 (S.D.W. Va.) Nancy Fleming was surgically implanted with Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit, a product manufactured by Boston Scientific Corp. (BSC), to treat pelvic organ prolapsed. On April 17, 2008, Ms. Fleming underwent a procedure to remove exposed mesh. Ms. Fleming was surgically implanted with the Obtryx Transobturator Mid- Urethral Sling System. She received both surgeries at a hospital in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Fleming claims that as a result of implantation of the Pinnacle mesh product, she has experienced multiple complications. In her complaint, she brings the following claims against BSC as to both the Pinnacle and the Obtryx: strict liability for design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn; negligence; breaches of express and implied warranties; and punitive damages. Mr. Fleming brings a claim for loss of consortium. BSC filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that all of the plaintiffs' claims are barred by Florida's statute of limitations, and consequently, the court should grant summary judgment in favor of BSC and dismiss the entire case. Judge Goodwin granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. A copy of Judge Goodwin's memorandum opinion and order dated March 26, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/AKYtAdfrom Leagle.com Plaintiffs, represented by: Ami Rebecca Romanelli, Esq. Joseph A. Osborne, Esq. BABBITT JOHNSON OSBORNE & LECLAINCHE 1641 Worthington Rd, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: 561-684-2500 Facsimile: 561-684-6308 - and - Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. D. Renee Baggett, Esq. Douglass Alan Kreis, Esq. Patty Ann Trantham, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: 850-202-1010 Facsimile: 850-916-7449 - and - James E. Messer, Jr., Esq. FONVIELLE LEWIS FOOTE & MESSER 3375 Capital Cir NE # A Tallahassee, FL 32308 Telephone: 850-391-6712 - and - Katharine Gale Krottinger, Esq. Douglas C. Monsour, Esq. THE MONSOUR LAW FIRM 404 N. Green St. Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: 903-758-5757 Facsimile: 903-230-5010 Boston Scientific Corporation, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer -- bbodamer@shb.com -- Eva Marie Mannoia Weiler -- eweiler@shb.com -- Hildy M. Sastre -- hsastre@shb.com -- Jon A. Strongman -- jstrongman@shb.com -- Matthew D. Keenan -- mkeenan@shb.com -- Mihai Marian Vrasmasu -- mvrasmasu@shb.com -- Rebecca A Ocariz -- rocariz@shb.com -- Robert T. Adams -- rtadams@shb.com -- Steven D. Soden -- ssoden@shb.com -- at SHOOK HARDY & BACON; Lindsey M. Saad -- lsaad@fsblaw.com -- Michael Bonasso -- mbonasso@fsblaw.com -- at FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO BUCKLEY'S GREAT: Judge Won't Certify Class in "Foley" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Landya McCafferty of the District of New Hampshire denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case Margaret Foley on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Buckley's Great Steaks, Inc.; and Michael Timothy's Dining Group, Inc., CIVIL NO. 14-CV-063-LM (D.N.H.) Foley claims that defendants violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g)(1), a section of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, when Buckley's Great Steaks, Inc. issued approximately 32,000 electronically printed point-of-sale credit- card receipts that included the card's expiration date. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification asking the court to certify a class of "All persons to whom, on or after February 6, 2012, defendants provided a receipt that has the person's full name, the last four digits of the credit card or debit card's numbers and the full credit card or debit card's expiration date." After plaintiff filed her motion for class certification, but before the deadline for objecting, the parties filed a notice of settlement, and submitted a settlement agreement for approval by the court pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge McCafferty denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. A copy of Judge McCafferty's order dated April 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/PSgAcVfrom Leagle.com Margaret Foley, Plaintiff, represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Esq. LYONS LAW FIRM, PA 367 Commerce Ct. Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: 651-770-9707 - and - Roger B. Phillips, Esq. PHILLIPS LAW OFFICE 104 Pleasant St. Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: 603-225-2767 Defendants, represented by: John M. Edwards, Esq. David K. Pinsonneault, Esq. WINER & BENNETT LLP 111 Concord Street P.O. Box 488 Nashua, NH 03061-0488 Telephone: 603-882-5157 Facsimile: 603-882-2694 CACH LLC: Judge Finally Certifies "Morris" Case as Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the District of Nevada granted certification in the case RODNEY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. CACH, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company; SQUARETWO FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-cv- 270-APG-GWF (D. Nev.) On March 12, 2015, a final fairness hearing was held pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 to determine whether the litigation satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment and whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the class members and should be fully and finally approved by the court. The parties have requested final certification of the settlement class under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) and final approval of the proposed class action settlement. Judge Gordon finally certified as a class action on behalf of the following Settlement Classes: "CLASS 1" is defined as: All individual consumers with Nevada addresses whose accounts are owned by CACH, LLC and who: (a) within four years prior to the filing of this action; (b) were sent a collection letter on a debt owned by CACH; (c) in a form materially identical or substantially similar to the letter sent to the Plaintiff, wherein the amount claimed to be owed was not itemized; and (d) the letter was not returned by the postal service as undelivered. "CLASS 2" is defined as: All individual consumers with Nevada addresses whose accounts are owned by CACH, LLC and who: (a) within one year prior to the filing of this action; (b) were sent a collection letter on a debt owned by CACH; (c) in a form materially identical or substantially similar to the letter sent to the Plaintiff, wherein the amount claimed to be owed was not itemized; and (d) the letter was not returned by the postal service as undelivered. Class 2 is a subset of Class 1. Excluded from these Classes are: -- Any person who is already subject to an existing general release; -- any person who is deceased; -- any person who has filed for bankruptcy protection under Title 11 of the United States Code on or after the start of the Class 2 period; and -- any Class Member who timely mails a request for exclusion. Excluded from the Class are: a. any person who is already subject to an existing release; b. any person who is deceased; c. any person who has filed for bankruptcy protection under Title 11 of the United States Code on or after February 28, 2012; and d. any Class Member who timely mails a request for exclusion. The Court certifies plaintiff Rodney Morris as the Class Representative and Craig B. Friedberg and Brian L. Bromberg as Class Counsel for the Class Members. The Court finds that the Litigation satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under FED. R. CIV. P. 23, namely: a. the Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all of them in the Litigation is impracticable; b. there are questions of law and fact common to the Class Members, which predominate over any individual questions; c. the claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class Members; d. the Plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of all of the Class Members; and e. Class treatment of these claims will be efficient and manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial economy, and a class action is superior to other available methods for a fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. A copy of Judge Gordon's final order and judgment dated March 25, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/KgzIxEfrom Leagle.com Rodney Morris, Plaintiff, represented by: Brian L Bromberg, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 26 Broadway, 21st Floor (cor. of Beaver Street) Manhattan, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-248-7906 - and - Craig B. Friedberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG 4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103 Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 Telephone: 702.435.7968 Email: cbfriedberg@justice.com CACH, LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Christopher Jorgensen -- CJorgensen@LRRLaw.com -- at Lewis Roca Rothgerber CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Francis J. Bonanno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., Wei Cao, and Tony Liu, Case No. 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 530 University Avenue, Suite 17, Palo Alto, CA 94301. It focuses on developing and marketing cell-based therapies to treat serious chronic and degenerative diseases, such as cancer, osteoarthritis, tissue damage, various inflammatory diseases, and metabolic diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 285-5330 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. C. Dov Berger, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com cdberger@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Ask 2nd Circuit for Re-Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the Amara cash balance pension plan litigation filed a petition for re-hearing with the Second Circuit, Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of herself and other similarly situated participants in the Plan affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various ERISA violations, including, that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre- conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; (2) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre- conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. In 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions in this matter and returned the case to the District Court, which ordered the Company to pay substantially the same benefits as had been ordered in 2008 and denied the Company's motion to decertify the class. The parties again appealed, with the plaintiffs challenging the District Court's denial of their request to return to the prior annuity benefit plan formula, and Cigna and the Plan appealing the District Court's order and the denial of a motion to decertify the class. In December 2014, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court ruling. In January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for re-hearing with the Second Circuit. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. CIGNA CORP: Franco Plaintiffs Appeal District Court Decisions ------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in the case Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation. In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. CIVIA CYCLES: Recalls Hyland Bicycles and Aluminum Fenders ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Civia Cycles, of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Hyland Bicycles and Aluminum Fenders. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The fender mounting bracket can break or bend, posing a fall hazard to the rider. This recall includes all Civia aluminum fenders sold separately as aftermarket sets and all Civia Hyland bicycles sold with the fenders as original equipment. The recalled fenders are round, designed for use with 700c wheels and tires and have the Civia logo on the front and rear sides of each fender. Fender sets came in black, blue, green, olive, red and silver. Hyland bicycles came in blue, green, olive and red. The bikes have "Hyland" on the top tube, "Civia" on the down tube and the Civia logo on the seat tube. Civia has received one report in which a consumer stated that a bracket broke and resulted in the consumer suffering a cervical spine injury and nerve damage. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/ITDwgA The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Independent bicycle retailers nationwide and online from April 2008 through March 2013 for about $60 per Civia fender set and between $1,200 and $4,500 for Civia Hyland bicycles. Consumers should immediately stop riding bicycles with the recalled fenders and contact an authorized Civia Cycles dealer to receive a $60 credit. COMCAST CORP: Settlement in Philadelphia Cluster Case Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal Media, LLC said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a District Court has granted preliminary approval to a settlement of the Philadelphia Cluster antitrust case. "We are defendants in two purported class actions originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania," the Company said. "The potential class in the Massachusetts case, which has been transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is our customer base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is our customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes, including treble damages." "Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively. We appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the class certification in August 2011. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted our petition to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and in March 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the class had been improperly certified and reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit. In August 2013, the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Cluster case moved to certify a new, smaller class, which we opposed in January 2014. The parties have been discussing possible resolution of the Philadelphia Cluster case. Accordingly, in February 2014, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to stay the case, which the District Court granted. "In April 2014, the District Court granted our unopposed motion to de-certify the Chicago Cluster class and the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to amend the Pennsylvania case so as to dismiss claims relating to the Chicago Cluster. In April 2014, lead counsel for the Boston Cluster cases withdrew, and in June 2014, new counsel requested the Boston Cluster cases be transferred to the federal court in Boston, which we have opposed. The District Court denied the request and dismissed the case, though the Boston plaintiffs have appealed both rulings. In December 2014, the District Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement of the Philadelphia Cluster case, which contains no admission or finding of liability. We do not expect the settlement of the Philadelphia Cluster case to have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position." COMCAST CORP: Refiled Motion to Compel Arbitration -------------------------------------------------- Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal Media, LLC said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has refiled its motion to compel arbitration in a consolidated class action lawsuit. "We are the defendant in 23 putative class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the country. All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings," the Company said. "In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs allege that we improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In January 2010, we moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California and Washington. "In July 2011, we moved to compel arbitration of most of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration. The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that we improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of digital cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment/restitution. We removed the case to the United States District Court for West Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the multidistrict litigation. A comprehensive settlement agreement for all 23 cases that had been submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval in June 2013 was withdrawn in October 2014, and we refiled our motion to compel arbitration. We do not expect these cases to have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position." CONSECO INC: Did Not Breach Insurance Policies, Court Says ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California ruled on the parties' motions in the case WILLIAM BURNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONSECO, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 10-MD-02124-SI (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs William Burnett and Joe Camp are former owners of LifeTrend 3 and LifeTrend 4 life insurance policies that were administered by Conseco's then-indirect corporate parent, defendant CNO Financial Group, Inc. and defendant CNO Services, LLC, a subsidiary of CNO Financial Group. Plaintiffs allege that by the early 2000s, Conseco was losing money on the LifeTrend policies. In October 2008, Conseco issued a letter demanding shortfall payments amounting to several years' worth of retroactively imposed annual premiums. Plaintiffs allege that Conseco's provision of inaccurate information in the October 2008 letter breached the policies irrespective of whether Conseco ultimately paid or intended to pay correctly calculated death benefits and account surrender values. According to plaintiffs, Conseco expected and intended thousands of LifeTrend policyholders to respond to the shock of the massive increases by surrendering their policies or letting them lapse. Plaintiffs filed a suit and alleged that defendants breached the terms of the LifeTrend 3 and 4 policies; and plaintiffs and class members are entitled to money damages. Plaintiffs further seek a declaration that Conseco's actions violated the terms of the policies. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have also moved for sanctions. Judge Illston granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice and denied plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. A copy of Judge Illston's order dated April 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Yxsb51from Leagle.com Plaintiffs, represented by: Barbara Louise Lyons, Esq. The Davis Law Firm 625 Market Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-278-1400 Facsimile: 415-278-1401 - and - Neesa Sethi, Esq. Weisbrod Matteis Copley PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Ave NW #600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-499-7900 Facsimile: 202-478-1795 Defendants, represented by Raoul D Kennedy -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP COOK COUNTY, IL: Judge Denies Inmate's Preliminary Injunction Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District of Illinois ruled on the parties' motions in the case TYLON HUDSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TONI PRECKWINKLE, et al., Defendants, NO. 13 C8752 (N.D. Ill.) Plaintiff Tylon Hudson is a detainee of Cook County Jail. On December 6, 2013, Hudson filed a pro se complaint alleging that correctional officers at the jail coordinated an attack on him by another inmate and failed to intervene while he was being attacked in the Division X law library. The complaint also included aMonell claim. Hudson sought compensatory and punitive monetary damages to redress his injuries as well as attorneys' fees. On December 27, 2014, Judge Shadur granted Hudson's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and recruited an attorney to represent him. The recruited attorney's tenure was short. On February 27, 2014, Locke Bowman and David Shapiro of the MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University filed appearances on behalf of Hudson and the recruited attorney withdrew. The new attorneys filed an amended complaint, adding four named plaintiffs and class claims. The amended complaint sought injunctive relief on behalf of the class in the form of an order preventing the defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons under their control from subjecting plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent from the unlawful policies, practices, and conduct described in the amended complaint. Plaintiffs quickly moved for the entry of a preliminary injunction. Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and Cook County filed a motion to dismiss arguing that they cannot be held liable for the actions of those who have direct responsibility for operating the Jail. Named in their official capacities, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections Cara Smith, Superintendent of Division X E. Greer, Superintendent of Division IX V. Thomas, as well as Officer Campbell, Sergeant Lewis, Officer Wilson, and Lieutenant Johnson, who were named individually, have separately moved to dismiss the amended complaint arguing that the injunctive relief sought already exists in the form of an agreed order in United States v. Cook County (10 C 2946) and that the amended complaint fails to state a claim for damages. Judge Kendall denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. President Preckwinkle and Cook County's motion to dismiss is denied. The Sheriff's Office defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The amended complaint is dismissed as to Lieutenant Lewis, but the remainder of the motion is denied. Defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' submission related to the preliminary injunction hearing is denied. A copy of Judge Kendall's memorandum opinion and order dated March 31, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/CQkydKfrom Leagle.com Tylon Hudson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan S. Mills, Uptown People's Law Center, Alexa Van Brunt, Roderick Macarthur Justice Center, Andrew Francis Merrick, Jenner & Block LLP, David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, David M. Shapiro, Roderick Macarthur Justice Center/Northwestern University, Laura A Kleinman, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner & Block Llp, Locke E. Bowman, III, MacArthur Justice Center, Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp, Sheila A Bedi, Roderick Macarthur Justice Center &Steve Weil, MacArthur Justice Center Laton Stubblefield, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Francis Merrick, Jenner & Block LLP, David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, Laura A Kleinman, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner & Block Llp, Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp & Steve Weil, MacArthur Justice Center Angelo Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Francis Merrick, Jenner & Block LLP, David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, Laura A Kleinman, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner & Block Llp, Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp & Steve Weil, MacArthur Justice Center Jermaine Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Francis Merrick, Jenner & Block LLP, David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, Laura A Kleinman, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner & Block Llp, Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp & Steve Weil, MacArthur Justice Center Anton Carter, on behalf themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Francis Merrick, Jenner & Block LLP, David J. Bradford, Jenner & Block LLP, Laura A Kleinman, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Leah K Williams, Jenner & Block Llp, Nicole C. Berg, Jenner & Block Llp & Steve Weil, MacArthur Justice Center Toni Preckwinkle, Defendant, represented by Lisa Marie Meador, Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude Sorich, Cook County State's Attorney & Thomas Edward Nowinski, Cook County State's Attorneys Office Tom Dart, Sheriff/Warden, Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson,Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Lisa Marie Meador, Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude Sorich, Cook County State's Attorney, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Cara Smith, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Cook County Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Lisa Marie Meador, Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude Sorich, Cook County State's Attorney, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP E. Greer, Superintendent of Division X, in his official capacity, Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Lisa Marie Meador, Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude Sorich, Cook County State's Attorney, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Thomas, Superintendent of Division IX, V., in his official capacity, Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,Lisa Marie Meador, Cook County State's Attorney, Michael Jude Sorich, Cook County State's Attorney,Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP The County of Cook, Defendant, represented by Lisa Marie Meador, Cook County State's Attorney &Thomas Edward Nowinski, Cook County State's Attorneys Office Officer Campbell, in his individual capacity, Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Sargeant Lewis, in her individual capacity, Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Officer Wilson, in her individual capacity, Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Lieutenant Johnson, in her individual capacity, Defendant, represented by James Matthias Lydon, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Robert Thomas Shannon, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Gretchen Harris Sperry, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Paul A O'Grady, Peterson Johnson and Murray Chicago LLC & Virginia Brette Bensinger, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Susan McCampbell, Respondent, represented by Catherine Macneil Barber, Rock Fusco & Connelly, Llc, John Joseph Rock, Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC & Stacy Ann Benjamin, Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC CYCLE GEAR: Recalls Wheelies Semi-Truck Due to Lead --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cycle Gear Inc., of Benicia, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 155 Wheelies semi-truck with six motorcycles and push- along motorcycle with rider. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The toys contain excessive levels of lead, which is a violation of the federal standard for lead content. This recall involves plastic Wheelies semi-truck with six motorcycles toy and Wheelies push-along motorcycle toys. The semi- truck has a dual-level trailer that carries six motorcycles and comes in red and purple with multi-colored motorcycles. The truck with the trailer attached measures 18 inches long by 7 inches tall. The truck has the item number Item # TAG66767 and SKU# 752249 printed on the packaging. The Wheelies push-along motorcycle is red with a rider in black with silver accents. The product has item # TBG04323 and SKU# 752251 printed on the package. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/VE9vXn The recalled products were manufactured in China by ShanTou MeiTian Trading Co, Ltd, AmerEuro Trading Limited and sold at Cycle Gear stores and online at www.cyclegear.com from November 2014 through December 2014 for about $10 for Push Along Motorcycle and $20 for Semi-Truck with six motorcycles. Consumers should immediately take away from children and stop using the recalled toys and contact Cycle Gear Inc. for a full refund. Cycle Gear Inc. is contacting consumers directly. DEVERE CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Foti Karastamatis and Pete Quimby, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees v. Devere Construction Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02263 (W.D. Tenn., April 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Devere Construction Company, Inc. is a Michigan Corporation with its principal executive office located at 1030 DeVere Drive, Alpena, Michigan 49707-8163, which operates a construction company performing general contracting as well as construction management and design/build services in the education, healthcare, government, correctional, residential and manufacturing sectors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Cordova, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Sued Over Misleading Advertisement Campaign ----------------------------------------------------------- Cory Hemrich and Cooper Ogburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Draftkings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv- 00445 (S.D. Ill., April 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' deceptive advertising claims that lead a reasonable consumer to believe that he or she will immediately receive and be able to use 100% of the initial deposit in DraftKings' games. Draftkings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 125 Summer St., 5th Floor, Boston Massachusetts 02110. It is in the business of offering paid fantasy sports contests for cash prizes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD 1010 Market Street, Suite 1720 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5799 Facsimile: (314) 241-5788 E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com - and - Anthony S. Bruning, Esq. Anthony S. Bruning Jr., Esq. LERITZ, PLUNKERT & BRUNING, P.C. 555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 231-9600 Facsimile: (314) 231-9480 E-mail: ajbruning@leritzlaw.com ECOLOGICAL PAPER: Faces "Kinlock" Suit over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton P. Kinlock, Willie D. Palmer, individually and other similarly-situated individuals v. Manuela Flores, Jose Flores, Sr., Maria Perez, and Jose Flores, Case No. 1:15-cv-21499-JLK (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Individual Defendants are supervisors, directors, and owners of Ecological Paper Recycling, Inc. Ecological Paper Recycling, Inc. is a Florida corporation that owns and operates a recycling center in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Reiner II, Esq. REINER & REINER PA 9100 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 901 Miami, FL 33156-7815 Telephone: (305) 670-8282 Facsimile: (305) 670-8989 E-mail: dpr@reinerslaw.com EDUCATION SERVICE: Faces "Blanton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Randall Blanton v. Education Service Center Region 11 and Dr. Clyde W. Steelman Jr., Case No. 4:15-cv-00303-O (N.D. Tex., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Education Service Center Region 11 is a state agency in the Northern District of Texas. Dr. Clyde W. Steelman Jr. is the Executive Director for Education Service Center Region 11. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kalandra Nicole Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROB WILEY PC 1825 Market Center Blvd, Suite 385 Dallas, TX 75207 Telephone: (214) 528-6500 Facsimile: (214) 528-6511 E-mail: kwheeler@robwiley.com EURO-PRO OPERATING: Recalls Upright Vacuum Cleaners --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Euro-Pro Operating LLC, of Newton, Mass., announced a voluntary recall of about 142,000 Upright vacuum cleaners in the United States and about 650 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The aluminum wand can disconnect from the vacuum cleaners' handle and remain energized with electricity, posing a risk of electric shock. This recall involves four models of Shark(R) brand Rotator(R) Powered Lift-Away(R) series upright vacuum cleaners. They are either maroon or purple in color and have a clear plastic middle section. Shark and Rotator are printed on the front of the vacuum cleaners. They measure about 45 inches tall by 12 inches wide. Recalled model numbers include NV650W, NV651, NV652 and NV660. The model number is printed on a silver sticker on the upper right- hand corner of the back of the unit. Models NV650W and NV652 are maroon. Model NV650W is sold directly to consumers by Euro-Pro and model NV652 is sold at retail stores. Models NV651 and NV660 are purple and are sold at retail stores. The date code is printed on the metal prong of the power plug and shows the week and year of manufacture in the WWYY format. Recalled units have date codes beginning with the number 48 or lower and ending with 14. Vacuum cleaners marked with a dimple or green circle sticker on the outside of the plastic cuff that holds the aluminum wand have been inspected by the firm and are not included in this recall. The firm has received 62 reports of incidents in which the aluminum wand disconnected from the vacuum cleaner's handle. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/HyFYK8 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed Bath & Beyond, Best Buy, Kohl's, Lowes, Target and other stores nationwide, online at www.sharkclean.com and through television infomercials from August 2014 through March 2015 for between $250 and $350. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vacuum cleaners and contact Euro-Pro to receive a free replacement wand. EVERYBODY FITNESS: Ohio Appeals Court Trims "Brogley" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary E. Donovan of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County, affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's judgment in the appealed case entitled JASON BROGLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EVERYBODY FITNESS, LLC, Defendant- Appellant, C.A. No. 26453 (Ohio Ct. App.) Plaintiff Jason Brogley filed a complaint against Everybody Fitness, LLC (EBF) and Wesley Harrell, alleging that on December 15, 2012, Brogley entered into a 36 month contract for access to a fitness center located at 7355 Troy Pike, Huber Heights, Ohio 45424, owned and operated by defendants. Brogley asserted that the contract required him to pay a $100.00 enrollment fee before he could use the fitness center that was the subject of the contract, and that he was also required to pay $48.10 per month beginning on January 15, 2013, and an annual fee of $41.73 beginning on July 1, 2013. Brogley asserted that he, through counsel, sent EBF a letter cancelling the contract via certified mail to EBFs According to the complaint, in the letter, Brogley requested EBF refund all payments Mr. Brogley made under the contract, less $10.00, requested the cancellation and return of any evidence of indebtedness executed by Mr. Brogley in connection with the contract, requested notification of whether EBF intended to repossess or abandon any evidence of membership or other goods provided to Mr. Brogley by EBF, requested that EBF pay Mr. Brogley $1,000.00 for Mr. Brogley's attorney's fees, and requested EBF pay Mr. Brogley $500.00 for Mr. Brogley's damages. EBF and Harrell answered the complaint on June 19, 2014. Brogley filed a motion for summary judgment against EBF on August 18, 2014, and asserted that he was entitled to a notice of cancellation that complied with the requirements of R.C. 1345.44(B) because the contract was a prepaid entertainment contract. Brogley asserted that EBF violated the CSPA by including impermissible terms in the contract. The court favors the plaintiff and against the defendant. The court by separate entry set the matter for a hearing on October 6, 2014 on the issue of attorney fees. On October 1, 2014, EBF filed Defendant's Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, asserting that the claims against Harrell are still pending, and that a hearing on attorneys' fees incurred through October 6, 2014 will only needlessly increase litigation fees and expert witness fees and will not result in reaching a final resolution on that issue. EBF further asserted, in the alternative, if the court is not inclined to grant defendant's requested stay, defendants move for the issuance of an order which amends the September 12, 2014 Judgment Entry to include an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, as required by Civ.R. 54(B) and thus providing defendants with an immediate right to appeal the judgment entry, in advance of the 14 day deadline expressed in the judgment entry and also in advance of the October 6, 2014 hearing on attorney's fees. On October 1, 2014, the court granted the motion, which Brogley opposed on October 3, 2014. In its amended judgment entry, the court enters final judgment upon the claims and expressly determines that there is no jus reason for delay. Defendant appealed. Judge Donovan affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment on the trial court and remanded the suit for modification of the judgment to Montgomery County Municipal Court, Eastern Division. A copy of Judge Donovan's opinion dated April 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/9rTLtHfrom Leagle.com Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee: Karl W. Snyder, Esq. Daniel A. Yarmesch, Esq. DOUCET & ASSOCIATES, CO., L.P.A. 700 Stonehenge Parkway, Suite 2B, Dublin, OH 43017 Telephone: 614-944-5219 Facsimile: 818-638-5548 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant: Luke J. Busam, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLC 3300 Great American Tower 301 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: 513-651-6800 Facsimile: 513-651-6981 The Appellate Court panel consists of Presiding Judge Jeffrey E. Froelich and Judges Mary E. Donovan and Jeffrey M. Welbaum FACEBOOK INC: Sued Over Illegal Use of Members' Biometric Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Pezen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03484 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's misuse of personally identifying biometric information that the they collected from its members, without informed consent. More specifically, the Defendant extracts geometric data from photos uploaded by Facebook members to create a highly detailed geometric map of the user's face. These data are used under its facial biometric system, which is integrated into Facebook's Photo Tag Suggest program. Facebook, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. It operates the largest social media network in the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Rifkind, Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD., 351 W. Hubbard St., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 634-0057 E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com newton@laskyrifkind.com - and - Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. Corban S. Rhodes, Esq. Ross M. Kamhi, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: jbernstein@labaton.com crhodes@labaton.com rkamhi@labaton.com FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forcefield Energy Inc., David Natan, Jason Williams, Richard St-Julien, The Dreamteam Group, and Mission Investor Relations d/b/a Missionir, Case No. 1:15-cv-03141-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 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. Forcefield Energy Inc. is a designer, distributor and licensee of alternative energy products and solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com GENA ACCESSORIES: Recalls Silk Scarves Due to Burn Hazard --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Gena Accessories Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 9,400 Silk scarves. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The scarves fail to meet the federal flammability standard for wearing apparel and pose a burn hazard to consumers. This recall involves Gena Accessories women's silk scarves. The recalled scarves measure 64 inches long by 18 inches wide and were sold in the colors black, brown, burgundy, camel, fuchsia, green, grey, lavender, light blue, light green, light pink, orange, red, turquoise, white and yellow. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/Lt8hjX The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Specialty accessory boutiques in New York City and online at Amazon.com, GenaAccessories.com and Scarfand.com from January 2007 through February 2015 for about $12. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled scarves and contact Gena Accessories Inc. for a full refund. GEORGIA: Appeals Court Revives Unit Cerebral Palsy Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christopher McFadden of the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the Superior Court's judgment in granting defendant's motion in the appealed case entitled UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF GEORGIA, INC., et al., v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES et al., A14A1548, A14A1549 (Ga. Ct. App.) The plaintiffs are nonprofit corporations that provide services to Georgia Medicaid patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities (providers), the patients who receive those services (recipients), and the recipients' family representatives. The defendants Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, the Georgia Department of Community Health are the state agencies that administer the Medicaid program in Georgia and those agencies' commissioners. In 2007, the federal government approved two waiver programs, the New Options Waiver Program, which the parties refer to as NOW, and the Comprehensive Supports Waiver Program, which the parties refer to as COMP. NOW and COMP allow the defendants to permit the providers to furnish services to recipients in home and community- based settings rather than in institutions. The waiver programs became part of Georgia's Medicaid plan and were incorporated into a provision of the contracts known as statements of participation between the defendants and the providers. According to the plaintiffs, since 2008, the defendants have not paid the providers the approved rates and have limited the amount of services recipients can receive, sometimes to below the amount that is medically necessary. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made these reductions without public notice and comment as required by federal and state law and without giving the providers or recipients proper notice in violation of their rights to due process and contrary to the terms of the statements of participation. The plaintiffs filed suit, asserting claims for breach of contract, violation of their rights to administrative remedies under OCGA Section 49-4-153 (b) (1), and violation of their constitutional rights. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the suit for the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. The plaintiffs appealed arguing that they were excused from the exhaustion requirement because the defendants did not give them required notice of the adverse action at issue. Judge McFadden agreed with the plaintiffs and reversed the judgment made by the trial court granting defendants' motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge McFadden's judgment dated March 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/nuV7U9from Leagle.com The Appeals Court panel consists of Presiding Judge Gary Blaylock Andrews and Judges Christopher J. McFadden and William M. Ray, II. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: 15 Class Suits on Avandia Pending in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 2015, the Group has reached agreements to settle the substantial majority of federal and state cases on Avandia pending in the US, and 15 purported class actions on Avandia are pending in Canada. The Group has been named in product liability lawsuits on behalf of individuals asserting personal injury claims arising out of the use of Avandia. The federal cases filed against the Group are part of a multi-district litigation proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the 'MDL Court'). Cases have also been filed in a number of state courts. As of February 2015, the Group has reached agreements to settle the substantial majority of federal and state cases pending in the US. 15 purported class actions on Avandia are pending in Canada. The Group has reached an agreement in principle to resolve the single purported consumer class action in Israel, which has now been approved by the Court. In the UK, litigation against the Group has ended following the formal discontinuance of the claims of the majority of the claimants and a court order striking the claims of the remaining claimants. There are four purported class actions seeking economic damages on behalf of third party payers asserting claims arising under various state and federal laws, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), state unfair trade practices and/or consumer protection laws. The MDL Court denied the Group's motion to dismiss three of the third party payer actions, and the fourth action has been stayed. The Group has appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. One consumer class action brought on behalf of Missouri residents remains pending in the MDL Court. Humana Medical Group (Humana) has brought two separate subrogation actions, one as a purported class action in the MDL Court. The MDL Court has denied class certification. United Health Group, Inc. has brought a separate subrogation action against the Group. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: 3 Paxil Trials Scheduled in 2015 ----------------------------------------------------- Three trials are scheduled in 2015 related to lawsuits and claims on the use of Paxil/Seroxat and Paxil CR during pregnancy, GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Group has received numerous lawsuits and claims alleging that use of Paxil (paroxetine) has caused a variety of injuries. Most of these lawsuits in recent years have alleged that the use of Paxil during pregnancy resulted in the birth of a child with birth defects or health issues. Other lawsuits and claims have alleged that patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit suicide or acts of violence or that patients suffered symptoms on discontinuing treatment with Paxil. The Group has reached agreements to settle the substantial majority of the US claims relating to the use of Paxil during pregnancy as of February 2015, but a number of claims related to use during pregnancy are still pending in various courts in the US. Other matters have been dismissed without payment. Currently, there are three trials scheduled in 2015. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Trial in Canada Paxil Case in Oct. 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------ The case in Canada related to lawsuits and claims on the use of Paxil/Seroxat and Paxil CR during pregnancy is scheduled to be tried in October 2016, GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Group has received numerous lawsuits and claims alleging that use of Paxil (paroxetine) has caused a variety of injuries. Most of these lawsuits in recent years have alleged that the use of Paxil during pregnancy resulted in the birth of a child with birth defects or health issues. Other lawsuits and claims have alleged that patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit suicide or acts of violence or that patients suffered symptoms on discontinuing treatment with Paxil. There are two proposed, and one certified, class actions in Canada. The action that has been certified as a national class action is in British Columbia and relates to cardiovascular defects. An appeal from that certification decision was dismissed in October 2013, and the case is scheduled to be tried in October 2016. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: No Trials This Year "Acts of Violence" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- There are no trials scheduled for 2015 on lawsuits and claims that alleged that patients who took Paxil/Seroxat and Paxil CR committed or attempted to commit suicide or acts of violence, GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Group has received numerous lawsuits and claims alleging that use of Paxil (paroxetine) has caused a variety of injuries. Most of these lawsuits in recent years have alleged that the use of Paxil during pregnancy resulted in the birth of a child with birth defects or health issues. Other lawsuits and claims have alleged that patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit suicide or acts of violence or that patients suffered symptoms on discontinuing treatment with Paxil. As of February 2015, there were eight pending matters, including one lawsuit on appeal (pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) concerning allegations that patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit suicide or acts of violence. Currently, there are no trials scheduled for 2015. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: LAA Discharged Public Certificate ------------------------------------------------------ The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) has discharged public certificate, effectively ending the group action related that alleged that patients suffered symptoms on discontinuing treatment with Paxil/Seroxat and Paxil CR, GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Group has received numerous lawsuits and claims alleging that use of Paxil (paroxetine) has caused a variety of injuries. Most of these lawsuits in recent years have alleged that the use of Paxil during pregnancy resulted in the birth of a child with birth defects or health issues. Other lawsuits and claims have alleged that patients who took Paxil committed or attempted to commit suicide or acts of violence or that patients suffered symptoms on discontinuing treatment with Paxil. In the UK, in late 2010, public funding was withdrawn from the claimants who had received funding to pursue litigation alleging that Paxil/Seroxat had caused them to suffer from withdrawal reactions and dependency. The majority of the claimants discontinued their claims. In June 2013, the Group was informed that the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) (formerly the Legal Services Commission) was considering whether to discharge the public funding certificate following the recommendation of its Special Cases Review Panel that the case has poor prospects of success. On January 29, 2015, the LAA discharged the public certificate, effectively ending the group action. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Poligrip Claims Still Pending -------------------------------------------------- Product liability lawsuits and claims over Super Poligrip are pending, GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Beginning in 2005, a number of product liability lawsuits and claims were filed against the Group in both state and federal courts in the USA, including purported class actions, alleging that the zinc in Super Poligrip causes copper depletion and permanent neurologic injury. The federal cases were consolidated in the Denture Cream Adhesive multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida which was established in June 2009. The original four putative class actions in the MDL have been dismissed. In 2013, a putative class action was filed in Puerto Rico, which was removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL where it remains pending as of February 2015. With two current exceptions (one state court case in Pennsylvania, and one state court case in small claims court in Tennessee), all other state court cases were consolidated in the Philadelphia state court Mass Tort Program (MTP). As of February 2015, there are no cases currently pending against GSK in the Philadelphia MTP. The vast majority of individual cases have been dismissed, with seven active individual cases and one putative class action in the MDL, and two state court cases, still pending against the Group in the USA. In Canada, one individual lawsuit and five purported class actions asserting consumer fraud claims have also been filed. Of those, the individual lawsuit and one putative class action have been dismissed. In addition, there are a few filed and unfiled claims in Turkey, the UK and elsewhere. The Group voluntarily withdrew all zinc-containing formulations of Super Poligrip from the market in early 2010. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Pretrial Activities Continue in Avandia Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Group is defending an action by the County of Santa Clara, California, which was brought under California's consumer protection laws seeking civil penalties and restitution as a result of the Group's marketing of Avandia. Pre-trial activities are continuing. If the case proceeds to trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the 'MDL Court') will send the case back to California federal court for a bench trial. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Resolved Native American Tribes Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that seven lawsuits were filed on behalf of Native American tribes relating to the sale and marketing of Avandia and other Group products. The Group resolved all claims by and against these groups in December 2014. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Claims re Paxil Purchases by Minors Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there remains a similar purported class action in Canada seeking economic damages on behalf of individuals who purchased Paxil for use by patients under the age of 18. In 2004, the Group settled a lawsuit filed by the New York State Attorney General's office alleging that the Group failed to disclose data on the use of Paxil in children and adolescents. In 2007 and 2008, the Group made class settlements of lawsuits brought by consumers and third-party payers, respectively, for economic damages allegedly resulting from prescriptions of Paxil to children and adolescents. The Group denied liability in these settlements. In 2010, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a similar purported class action filed on behalf of governmental entities that paid for prescriptions of Paxil to minors. There remains a similar purported class action in Canada seeking economic damages on behalf of individuals who purchased Paxil for use by patients under the age of 18. The certification application as part of this purported class action was adjourned in 2012 to permit the filing of further evidence and is likely to resume in 2015. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Lamictal Indirect Purchase Suit Suspended -------------------------------------------------------------- GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the action by purported indirect purchase class related to Lamictal has been suspended pending a decision on the direct purchasers' appeal. Purported direct and indirect purchaser class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the Group and Teva Pharmaceuticals unlawfully conspired to delay generic competition for Lamictal, resulting in their being overcharged. A separate count accuses the Group of monopolising the market. The District Court denied the motion of the purported direct purchaser class for reconsideration of the order granting the Group's motion to dismiss in December 2012. "The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and oral argument was heard on 18 November 2014. We await decision by the Third Circuit. The action by the purported indirect purchase class has been suspended pending a decision on the direct purchasers' appeal," the Company said. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Dispositive Bids Due in Wellbutrin XL Case --------------------------------------------------------------- GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that dispositive motions in connection with the remaining issue in the case related to Wellbutrin XL were due on March 20, 2015. Actions have been filed against Biovail Corporation (Biovail) and the Group in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by purported classes of direct and indirect purchasers who allege unlawful monopolisation and other anti-trust violations related to the enforcement of Biovail's patents for Wellbutrin XL and the filing, by Biovail, of citizen petitions. Both direct and indirect purchaser classes have been certified, although a motion to decertify the indirect purchaser class remains pending. The District Court granted the Group's motion for partial summary judgment primarily on immunity grounds. The sole remaining claim relates to plaintiffs' allegations that the Group entered into an anti-competitive reverse payment settlement to resolve the patent infringement litigation. Dispositive motions in connection with the remaining issue in the case were due on March 20, 2015. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: August 2015Trial in Remaining Stiefel Case --------------------------------------------------------------- GlaxoSmithKline plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the remaining Stiefel Securities/ERISA class action in Florida (Martinolich) is scheduled for trial in August 2015. On July 6, 2009, a class action suit brought on behalf of current and former employees of Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. (Stiefel), a Group company, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that Stiefel and its officers and directors violated the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and federal and state securities laws by inducing Stiefel employees to sell their shares in the employee stock plan back to Stiefel at a greatly undervalued price and without disclosing to employees that Stiefel was about to be sold to the Group. On July 21, 2011, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In October 2011, the District Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing all but one of the remaining plaintiffs in the litigation. Trial of claims of that one plaintiff, Timothy Finnerty, took place in May 2012 and resulted in a $1.5 million jury verdict in favour of Mr. Finnerty on his securities claims (separately, the Group settled Mr. Finnerty's ERISA claims). The Group appealed the verdict, but the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the verdict on June 30, 2014. A petition for certiorari has been filed with the US Supreme Court. Additionally, Stiefel won a complete defence verdict in the Fried case, tried in federal court in Florida in October 2013. Plaintiff appealed that verdict to the Eleventh Circuit, and a decision from that Court is pending. Two other Stiefel cases pending in Florida now have been dismissed: the Bacon case, settled by the Group in January 2015, and MacKay (in which summary judgment was granted in favour of the Group, a ruling that was later upheld by the 11th Circuit). The remaining case in Florida (Martinolich) is scheduled for trial in August 2015. Discovery continues in the Georgia and New York suits. All of these lawsuits involve claims similar to those brought in Finnerty. GOOCHIE GOO: Recalls Sensory Blankets Due to Laceration Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Goochie Goo Garbs LLC, of Scottsdale, Ariz., announced a voluntary recall of about 125 Sensory Grab Garb Blankets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Wire-edged ribbon used in the blanket's ribbon tags can become exposed, posing a laceration hazard to children. The Sensory Grab Garb blanket is a 6-inch square of soft fabric with crinkle paper inside and ribbon tags in the middle of each of the four sides. One side of the blanket contains a white satin ribbon tag with the words "Goochie Goo Garbs" on it. The polka- dot ribbon tags are black, blue, green, pink or red ribbons with white polka-dots. The blankets come in a variety of child themed patterns including shapes, animals and superhero themes. Only the 6-inch square Sensory Grab Garb blankets with colored polka-dot ribbon tags attached to the side of the blanket are included in the recall. The firm has received one report of a child that was scratched by the wire that came out of the ribbon tag. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/d0xmph The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Various children's specialty stores in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Pennsylvania from July 2014 through March 2015 for about $10. Consumers should immediately stop using these Sensory Grab Garb blankets and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund or a replacement blanket. GORSUCH LTD: Recalls Ertlrenz Ski Boot Liners Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Gorsuch Ltd., of Avon, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of about 300 Ertlrenz Trim Heat and Foam Heat ski boot liners. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Liner can overheat when charging, posing a fire hazard. The ERTLRENZ Trim Heat and Foam Heat are handmade, customized, black inner heat liners for ski boots. Every product is accompanied by a charger and a remote control for the heating system. There also is an accompanying ERTLRENZ instruction manual supplied with the heat liners at the time of purchase. Gorsuch received three reports of the heat liners smoldering during the charging process. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/gYufMj The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and Austria and sold at Gorsuch Ltd. stores in Aspen, Vail and Beaver Creek from November 2011 through March 2015 for about $690. Consumers should immediately stop using the heat liners and return the product with accessories (charger/remote control) to Gorsuch LTD or a Gorsuch store for repair or replacement. HOMELITE CONSUMER: Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Homelite Consumer Products Inc., of Anderson, S.C., announced a voluntary recall of About 823,000 Homelite electric blower vacuums in the United States and 41,000 in Canada. (Models UT42120 and UT42120A of this product were previously recalled in February 2013.). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The blower vacuum can overheat, spark and catch on fire posing fire and burn hazards. This recall involves Homelite 12 amp electric blower vacuums with model numbers UT42120, UT42120A and UT42121. Model numbers are located on a label on the left side of the red motor housing. The blower vacuums are red and black. "Homelite BlowerVac 2 Speed Powerful 220 MPH" is printed on the side of the motor housing and on the black plastic blower tube. Homelite has received 1,369 reports of blower vacuums sparking, arcing, smoking or burning, including one report of minor injury. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/XoduUf The recalled products were manufactured in China by Changzhou Globe Tools Co. Ltd. and Cixi City Best Power Tools Co., Ltd., of China and sold at Home Depot and Direct Tools Factory Outlets stores nationwide and online at www.homedepot.com from January 2010 through March 2015 for about $40. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower vacuums and return them to any Home Depot or Direct Tools Factory Outlet store for a full refund. HONEY SOLUTIONS: Importers and Suppliers Earn Sweet Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case entitled IN RE HONEY TRANSSHIPPING LITIGATION, CASE NO. 13- CV-2905 (N.D. Ill.) Honey Solutions is an industrial honey supplier structured as a Texas limited partnership with a principal place of business in Texas. HHI is the general partner of Honey Solutions. From 2003 to May 2008, Douglas A. Murphy was the Director of Sales at Honey Solutions. Defendant Urbain Tran is a citizen and resident of California and served as an agent for Honey Solutions in at least 2006. Sunland is a privately held wholesale honey import corporation. It is incorporated in Connecticut and has a principal place of business in Connecticut. The class plaintiffs allege that Sunland knowingly sold contaminated honey of Chinese origin to Groeb Farms, Inc., on several occasions between 2008 and 2010. From September 2008 to April 2010, Sunland allegedly used labels indicating that its honey was made in Vietnam, the Ukraine, India, and Brazil, when the honey actually came from China. In 2010, United States Customs allegedly imposed a $500,000 duty upon Sunland, after finding that Sunland sold honey that had entered the United States illegally from China in 2008 as "Vietnamese Honey." Both the class plaintiffs and the individual plaintiffs are domestic commercial beekeepers and packers of honey. They allege that the defendants' transshipping scheme suppressed the price of honey in the United States. The lower prices, in turn, undermined the plaintiffs' competitiveness in the marketplace and caused the plaintiffs to lose sales and market share. The class plaintiffs bring suit for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961, et seq., (RICO) against the defendants. The individual plaintiffs' complaint asserts claims arising under RICO and the Illinois common law, but not under the Lanham Act. Before the court is Sunland's motion to dismiss the class complaint, the Honey Solution defendants' motion to dismiss the class complaint, and the Honey Solution defendants' motion to dismiss the individual plaintiffs' complaint. Judge Gottschall granted Sunland's motion to dismiss the class complaint; and all claims in the class claims complaint are dismissed without prejudice as to Sunland. The Honey Solutions defendants' motions to dismiss the class complaint and the individual plaintiffs' complaint are granted in part and denied in part. A copy of Judge Gottschall's memorandum opinion and order dated March 31, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/SXCizKfrom Leagle.com Chris Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and Assoc., PC, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Sharon Harris, Barnow & Associates, P.C. Cox Honey of Utah, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and Assoc., PC, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Sharon Harris, Barnow & Associates, P.C. Brett Adee, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and Assoc., PC, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Sharon Harris, Barnow & Associates, P.C. Kelvin Adee, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and Assoc., PC, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Sharon Harris, Barnow & Associates, P.C. Daniel C. Whitney, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Bauer Honey, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Bee Natural Honey, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Bernard Casavan, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Blake Shook, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Ruby's Apiaries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Kallas Honey Farm, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Wind River Honey Company, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. &Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Heaven's Honey, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Brad Stromme, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Dan's Honey Company, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm McCoy's Sunny South Apiaries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Willow Bee, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm GloryBee Natural Sweeteners, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. &Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Orange Apiary, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm. Wee Bee Honey Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Adee Honey Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Bill Rhodes Honey Company, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Hackenberg Apiaries, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Doan's Honey Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. William H Perry, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. & Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm Ernest L. Groeb, Defendant, represented by Abigail A Clapp, Greenberg Traurig, LLP. & David N. Zacks, Ishbia & Gagleard, P.C. Troy L. Groeb, Defendant, represented by Joseph J. Duffy, Stetler, Duffy & Rotert, Ltd., Henry M. Baskerville, Stelter, Duffy & Rotert, Ltd. & William Paul Ziegelmueller, Stetler, Duffy & Rotert, Ltd. Horizon Partners, Ltd., Inc., Defendant, represented by James Peter Fieweger, Williams Montgomery & John, Ltd., Lisa Marie Noller, Foley & Lardner, Peter C. John, Williams, Montgomery & John, Ltd., Jonathan William Garlough, Foley & Lardner, Martin J. Bishop, Foley & Lardner & Rebecca Sklar Bradley, Foley & Lardner LLP Groeb Farms, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa Marie Noller, Foley & Lardner, Jonathan William Garlough, Foley & Lardner, Martin J. Bishop, Foley & Lardner & Rebecca Sklar Bradley, Foley & Lardner LLP Robert Feerick, Defendant, represented by James Peter Fieweger, Williams Montgomery & John, Ltd. &Peter C. John, Williams, Montgomery & John, Ltd. Marquette Capital Partners, Defendant, represented by Allan T. Slagel, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP,Christopher H. Montana, Fredrikson & Byron, P.a., Jeffrey M. Schieber, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP &Todd Wind, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. Thomas Jenkins, Defendant, represented by Allan T. Slagel, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Christopher H. Montana, Fredrikson & Byron, P.a., Jeffrey M. Schieber, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP & Todd Wind, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. Honey Holdings 1, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Darren Brett Watts, Swanson, Martin & Bell & Jonathan Rowan Walton, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Llp HHI Management, Defendant, represented by Darren Brett Watts, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Jeffrey Scott Becker, Swanson Martin & Bell LLP, Jonathan Rowan Walton, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Llp & Troy M Sphar, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP Douglas A Murphy, Defendant, represented by Darren Brett Watts, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Jeffrey Scott Becker, Swanson Martin & Bell LLP, Jonathan Rowan Walton, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Llp & Troy M Sphar, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP Urbain Tran, Defendant, represented by Bradley C. Graveline, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP &David Mitchell Poell, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP Sunland Trading, Defendant, represented by Alan S. Madans, Rothschild, Barry & Myers LLP, Daniel A. Cummings, Rothschild, Barry & Myers LLP, Kenneth P. Taube, Rothschild, Barry & Myers LLP & Robin Korman Powers, Rothschild, Barry & Myers LLP National Honey, Inc., Defendant, represented by M. H. Cersonsky, Ceronsky, Rosen & Garcia P.c. & Mark L. Rotert, Stetler, Duffy & Rotert, Ltd. Jun Yang, Defendant, represented by M. H. Cersonsky, Ceronsky, Rosen & Garcia P.c. & Mark L. Rotert, Stetler, Duffy & Rotert, Ltd. Honey Holding I, Ltd. d/b/a Honey Solutions, Respondent, represented by Darren Brett Watts, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Jeffrey Scott Becker, Swanson Martin & Bell LLP, Jonathan Rowan Walton, Swanson, Martin & Bell, Llp & Troy M Sphar, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP HHI Management, LLC, Respondent, represented by Darren Brett Watts, Swanson, Martin & Bell Douglas A Murphy, Respondent, represented by Darren Brett Watts, Swanson, Martin & Bell Adee Honey Farms, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. &Edmund S Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. Bill Rhodes Honey Company, LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Edmund S Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. Hackenberg Apiaries, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Edmund S Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. INTERTHINX INC: Faces "Weber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- John Weber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Interthinx, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv- 00646 (E.D. Mo., April 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Interthinx, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. It provides risk mitigation solutions focusing on mortgage fraud, collateral risk and valuation, regulatory compliance, forensic loan audit services, loss mitigation, and loss forecasting. Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey that is the parent company and sole shareholder of Interthinx. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP, LLC 10601 Mission Rd., Suite 100 Leawood, MO 66206 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com J. CREW: Recalls Baby Coveralls Due to Choking Hazard ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with J. Crew Group Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 20,000 Baby Coveralls (8,700 additional baby coveralls were recalled in May 2014). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Snaps on the coveralls can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. This recall involves J. Crew baby coveralls in sizes newborn to 2T. The coveralls were sold in various colors and designs including prints and stripes. A care label sewn into the inside left seam of the garment lists the PO number, style number and "SU '14." PO and style numbers included in the recall are: Style #A8248, PO numbers: 8044696, 8044697, 5046904 and SU '14 Style #A8249, PO numbers: 8044644, 5046905 and SU '14 Style #A8251, PO number: 8044643 and SU '14 Style #A8252, PO numbers: 8044642, 5046906 and SU '14 Style #A8273, PO number: 8044659 and SU '14 Style #A8274, PO numbers: 8044660, 5046909 and SU '14 Style #A8276, PO numbers: 8044661, 5046910 and SU '14 Style #A8341, PO number: 8044663 and SU '14 Style #A8358, PO numbers: 8044662, 5046911 and SU '14 Style #B3605, PO number: 8046744 and SU '14 Style #B3606, PO number: 8046743 and SU '14 Style #B3607, PO numbers: 8046745, 8046746, 5048693 and SU '14 The firm has received 10 reports of snaps detaching. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/K14Jeh The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at J.Crew stores in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington, D.C., online at jcrew.com and the J.Crew catalog from April 2014 to March 2015 for between $30 and $33. Consumers should immediately stop using the coveralls and contact J. Crew for a full refund. Consumers who purchased the garments online will receive instructions for returning the coveralls, including a postage-paid shipping label. J.Crew is contacting consumers who bought the coveralls directly. J&K ADMINISTRATIVE: Judge Won't Allow Separate Arbitrations ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case NEFFERTITI ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. J&K ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. AND KIMBERLY M. MEYERS Defendants/ Counter-Claimants, v. SANDRA HARRIS, et al., Third Party Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00956-L (N.D. Tex.) The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, who entered Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 17, 2015, recommending that the court deny defendants' application for order compelling separate arbitrations, and for appointment of arbitrators, subject to motion to transfer; granted plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration; and granted third party defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Defendants filed their objection to Magistrate's Finding, Conclusions, and Recommendation, filed March 3, 2015, contending that the magistrate judge incorrectly concluded that the arbitrator, not the court, should decide whether the parties' arbitration agreement allows for collective arbitration. Defendants contend that whether the parties must submit to collective arbitration is a decision for the court, not an arbitrator. Defendants further argue that the Fifth Circuit precedent concluding otherwise and relied on by the magistrate judge was wrongly decided and is not binding on this court base on the case Pedcor Mgmt. Co., Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan v. Nations Pers. of Texas, Inc., 343 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2003). Moreover, defendants argue that subsequent Supreme Court precedent compels this court to grant defendants' objection and decide the issue of arbitrability based on the contract between the parties base on Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) case. Plaintiffs counter that Pedcor is binding upon this court and has not been overruled, and that defendants' protestations to the contrary are creative attempts to avoid the application of binding precedent. Judge Lindsay denies defendants' application for order compelling separate arbitrations and for appointment of arbitrators, subject to motion to transfer Venue; grants plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration; and grants third party defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court determines that, in accordance with the arbitration agreements signed by plaintiff and each of the third party defendants, all claims are arbitrable and orders the parties to arbitrate any dispute between them in accordance with those agreements. Having determined that all of the issues raised by the parties must be submitted to binding arbitration, the court dismisses the action with prejudice. A copy of Judge Lindsay's memorandum opinion and order dated March 24, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/mKraFwfrom Leagle.com Neffertiti Robinson, Plaintiff/Defendant, represented by Chris Richard Miltenberger -- chris@crmlawpractice.com -- at The Law Office of Chris R Miltenberger PLLC J & K Administrative Management Services Inc. and Kimberly M Meyers, Defendants/Counter Claimants, represented by Eric J Millner -- emillner@bwwlaw.com -- David J Goodman -- dgoodman@bwwlaw.com -- at Bourland Wall & Wenzel PC Sandra Harris, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Chris Richard Miltenberger -- chris@crmlawpractice.com -- at The Law Office of Chris R Miltenberger PLLC J & K Administrative Management Services Inc. and Kimberly M Meyers, ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by Eric J Millner -- emillner@bwwlaw.com -- David J Goodman -- dgoodman@bwwlaw.com -- at Bourland Wall & Wenzel PC Gloria Turner, Joan Stanton and Ann Knight, ThirdParty Defendants, represented by Chris Richard Miltenberger -- chris@crmlawpractice.com -- at The Law Office of Chris R Miltenberger PLLC JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Finance Charge --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin J. Keen, Tamra E. Keen, Curt Conyers, Kelly E. Conyers, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:15-cv-01806-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly disclose the finance charge in the finance charge box of the Borrower's Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. owns and operates a national banking association with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: William McGrane, Esq. MCGRANE LLP Four Embarcadero Center Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 292-4807 E-mail: ecf@mcgranellp.com KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit did not appeal the Judgment and this matter is now concluded. "On February 1, 2013, a lawsuit was filed against us and our chief executive officer on behalf of a putative class of all of our shareholders (other than the defendants) who acquired our shares between June 1, 2009 and April 1, 2012. Smith v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-0755-TPG (S.D.N.Y.). On February 26, 2013, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed against us and our chief executive officer as well as our chief financial officer. Park v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-1307-TPG (S.D.N.Y.)," the Company said. On June 10, 2013, the Court entered an Order consolidating the two lawsuits and appointing a lead plaintiff. The case was styled In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-CV-0755-KBF (S.D.N.Y.). On July 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint that, in substance, repeated the claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuits. The Company said, "The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserted claims against (i) us for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) our chief executive officer for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint were premised on general allegations that we and the individual defendant participated directly or indirectly in the preparation and/or issuance of purportedly false and misleading earnings reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements, which allegedly caused our stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. On August 26, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February 14, 2014, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting the motion to dismiss. The Court entered Judgment for the Defendants on February 24, 2014. The lead plaintiff did not appeal the Judgment and this matter is now concluded." KIND LLC: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Product Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------- Charity Bustamante, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kind LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00891 -JAH-JMA (S.D. Cal., April 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false labels on its KIND bars and snack products that they are All Natural and Non GMO, when in fact they contain genetically modified and non-natural, highly processed ingredients including soy lecithin, soy protein isolate, and canola oil. Kind LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business is located in New York. It manufactures, promotes, markets, and distributes the snack products to consumers throughout California and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 434 West Alexandrine #101 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com LAND OF LINCOLN: Overcharges for Health Insurance, Ill. Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. overcharges for health insurance by basing premiums on pre-tax income instead of gross adjusted income, as required by the Affordable Care Act, in Cook County Chancery Court. LENOVO INC: Recalls Notebook Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Lenovo Inc., of Morrisville, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 148,800 ThinkPad notebook computer battery packs in the United States and 17,700 in Canada (About 34,500 in the United States and 2,900 in Canada were recalled in March 2014.). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The battery packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard. This recall involves Lenovo battery packs sold with the following ThinkPad notebook computers: the Edge 11, 13, 14, 15, 120, 125, 320, 325, 420, 425, 430, 520, 525 and 530 series; the L412, L420/421, L512 and L520 series; the T410, T420, T510 and T520 series; the W510 and W520 series; and the X100e, X120e, X121e, X130e, X200, X200s, X201, X201s, X220 and X220t series. The battery packs were also sold separately. The black battery packs measure between 8 to 11 inches long, 1 to 3 inches wide and about 1 inch high. Recalled battery packs have one of the following part numbers starting with the fourth digit in a long series of numbers and letters printed on a white sticker below the bar code on the battery pack: 42T4695, 42T4711, 42T4740, 42T4798, 42T4804, 42T4812, 42T4816, 42T4822, 42T4826, 42T4828, 42T4834, 42T4840, 42T4862, 42T4868, 42T4874, 42T4880, 42T4890, 42T4944, 42T4948, 42T4954, 42T4958, 45N1022 and 45N1050. Lenovo has received four reports of incidents of battery packs overheating and damaging the computers, battery packs and surrounding property. One incident included a consumer's skin being reddened and burn marks on the consumer's clothing. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/vMlVbj The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Computer and electronics stores, and authorized dealers nationwide and online at www.lenovo.com from February 2010 through June 2012 for between $350 and $3,000 when sold as part of ThinkPad notebook computers. The battery packs were also sold separately for between $80 and $150. Consumers should immediately turn off their ThinkPad notebook computer, remove the battery pack and contact Lenovo for a free replacement battery pack. Consumers can continue to use their ThinkPad notebook without the battery pack by plugging in the AC adapter and power cord. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Appeals in "Bezich" Case Pending -------------------------------------------------- Appeals in the case Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company ("LNL") are pending, Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County ("Court"), Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company ("LNL"), No. 02C01-0906-PL73, asserting he was charged a cost of insurance fee that exceeded the applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms of the insurance contract. "We dispute the allegations and are vigorously defending this matter. Plaintiff petitioned the Court to certify a class action, on behalf of all persons who purchased or owned the relevant insurance product between 1999 and 2009, alleging that: (i) LNL breached the contract by including non-mortality factors in cost of insurance rates; (ii) LNL breached the contract when it charged administrative expenses in excess of set amount; and (iii) LNL breached the contract by failing to adjust cost of insurance rates to reflect improving mortality expectations," the Company said. On June 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying certification on all of the Plaintiff's counts and claims except with respect to a single legal issue: whether the contract was breached as alleged in Count III. However, any damages arising from this alleged breach would have to be tried on an individual case-by-case basis. "The appellate court granted permission for our interlocutory appeal of the Court's certification of the single issue class. The plaintiff has cross-appealed and both appeals are pending," the Company said. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Defending Action by Lehman Special Financing -------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln National Corporation is vigorously defending the case, Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On July 23, 2012, LNL was added as a noteholder defendant to a putative class action adversary proceeding ("adversary proceeding") captioned Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03547 (JMP) and instituted under In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. seeks to (i) overturn the application of certain priority of payment provisions in 47 collateralized debt obligation transactions on the basis such provisions are unenforceable under the Bankruptcy Code; and (ii) recover funds paid out to noteholders in accordance with the note agreements. LMS INTELLIBOUND: "Kutzback" Case Wins Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. of the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, adopts the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation granting plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify class and to facilitate notice in the case MICHAEL KUTZBACK, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LMS INTELLIBOUND, LLC., a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC., a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV- 2767-JTF-CGC (W.D. Tenn.) The plaintiff Michael Kutzback brought this action against the defendants, employers LMS Intellibound, LLC and Capstone Logistics, LLC, for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 207 and for failure to pay wages in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 206 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify a class of all Uploaders employed by the defendants during the past three years in 239 or more nationwide locations. The court referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A). On December 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify the class and to facilitate notice be granted. The Magistrate Judge also entered an order denying plaintiff's motion to toll the statute of limitations. On December 30, 2014, defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which plaintiff filed his response in opposition on January 23, 2015. With leave from the court, defendants filed a reply in support of their objections to the report and recommendation on February 13, 2015. Judge Fowlkes adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations and authorizes the plaintiff to obtain discovery of the potential opt- in plaintiffs contact information, the parties' names, addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers. The defendants must provide this information to plaintiff within 30 days from the entry of this order. Notice by first class mail will be allowed using the proposed notice provided in the record. Additional notice by email will also be permitted. Plaintiff will be allowed to send one reminder postcard to the potential opt-in plaintiffs during the opt-in period of 60 days. Finally, the 60-day opt-in period will begin upon plaintiff's receipt of the potential opt-in plaintiffs' contact information. A copy of Judge Fowlkes's order dated March 25, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/7ryw4h from Leagle.com Michael Kutzback, Plaintiff, represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Michael N. Hanna, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 810 Broadway, Suite 105 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615-490-0944 Defendants, represented by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Ashley K. Laken -- alaken@seyfarth.com -- Jennifer A. Riley -- jriley@seyfarth.com -- Laura E. Reasons -- lreasons@seyfarth.com -- Rebecca Sharon Bromet -- at SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01797-HSG (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, prospects, operations and financial results, and failed to disclose the inadequacy of its internal controls and procedures over financial reporting. Magnachip Semiconductor Corporation is a South Korea-based designer and manufacturer of analog and mixed signal semiconductor products mainly for high-volume consumer, computer and communication applications, which includes smart phones. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com MAIL MEDIA: Faces "Forbes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jack A. Forbes, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Mail Media, Inc. and Martin Clarke, Case No. 1:15-cv-03099 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. Mail Media, Inc. is a multinational corporation that owns several tabloid newspapers and magazines both in print and on the internet. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven John Fingerhut, Esq. AXELROD, FINGERHUT & DENNIS 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (732) 491-5263 E-mail: sfingerhut@afdny.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wins Prelim. OK of M273 Engine Gears Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on April 8 preliminarily approved a class action settlement that claims M273 engine gears in some models of 2005-07 Mercedes wear out prematurely. The case is Majeed Seifi, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-05493-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. MERCADOLIBRE INC: Filed Defense in Class Action ----------------------------------------------- MercadoLibre, Inc. has filed its defense on October 3, 2014, in a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On June 13, 2014, the consumer association called "Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil Para Su Defensa" ("Consumidores Financieros") filed a class action against the Company's Argentine subsidiary, MercadoLibre S.R.L. ("MercadoLibre"), in the First Instance National Court on Commercial Matters Number Four of Buenos Aires, Argentina (the "Court"). Consumidores Financieros acts on behalf of customers who have used MercadoPago in Argentina and claims that MercadoLibre has infringed certain consumer provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, mostly related to certain information to be provided to consumers in relation to the transactions performed through MercadoPago by users holding credit cards that are not associated to MercadoLibre's promotions, and charged them excessive interest rates when users paid by installments. Consumidores Financieros seeks that (i) MercadoLibre provides clear and complete information about the costs of its service MercadoPago in Argentina, (ii) MercadoLibre reimburse users who have used MercadoPago in the last 10 years, an amount equivalent to the difference between the interest rate actually charged by MercadoLibre for the users that pay through MercadoPago by installments and the interest rate set down by the section 36 of the CPA in cases of violation of the duty of information as per section 36 (average annual rate set down by the Argentine Central Bank, which is 26.31% as of the date of this report), (iii) the Court establish the interest rate to be charged in future transactions where users pay by installments, estimate by Consumidores Financieros in twice the interest rate charged by the Banco de la Nacion Argentina in commercial transactions (as of the date of this report the doubled interest rate is estimated at 50%), and (iv) condemn MercadoLibre to pay punitive damages on the amount of AR$500 per each transaction performed in alleged violation to section 36 of the CPA. The Company filed its defense on October 3, 2014. "As of the date of this report according to the opinion of our management and legal counsel, the risk of MercadoLibre losing the case is remote," the Company said. MERCHANT FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pearl" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Alanna Pearl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Merchant Funding Group, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00883- MMA-RBB (S.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice if making telemarketing calls on the class members' cellular telephone from an auto-dialer using a prerecorded artificial voice message, without her prior express consent. Merchant Funding Group, LLC is a merchant cash advance company whose primary corporate offices are located at 515 S. Flower St. Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90071. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kira M. Rubel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KIRA RUBEL 555 West Beech Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (800) 836-6531 E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com MERRILL LYNCH: Sued Over Former Employee Plan Account Balances -------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin E. Davis and Roberto F. Garcia v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00175 (W.D.N.C, April 20, 2015), is brought on behalf of all former Merrill Lynch employees who at the time of their termination had unvested awards in one or more of the Plans or remaining bonus payments and were not paid their account balances in the Plans for awards made for production year 2008 and prior. The Defendants own and operate a financial services holding company incorporated in Delaware, whose subsidiaries provide financial and investment services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Meckler, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 128 South Tryon Street, Suite 1800 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 375-0057 Facsimile: (704) 332-1197 E-mail: smeckler@slk-law.com - and - Michael S. Taaffe, Esq. David L. Wyant, Jr., Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 240 South Pineapple Ave. - 10th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 366-6660 Facsimile: (941) 366-3999 E-mail: mtaaffe@slk-law.com dwyant@slk-law.com METLIFE INC: Continues to Face Westland Police Action ----------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. continues to face the case City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012), the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Continues to Face Birmingham Retirement Action ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. continues to face the case City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama, filed in state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to federal court on August 3, 2012), the Company said in its Form 10- K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants removed this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved to remand the action to state court. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to remand to state court and the defendants have objected to that recommendation. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs Appealed to Ninth Circuit ------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a defendant in lawsuits related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total Control Accounts ("TCA"), as a settlement option for death benefits. Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011) are putative class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC's use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No updates were provided in MetLife, Inc.'s Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. METLIFE INC: MLIC Moved to Dismiss "Owens" Action ------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has moved to dismiss the case Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a defendant in lawsuits related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total Control Accounts ("TCA"), as a settlement option for death benefits. Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014) is a putative class action lawsuit that alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. MLIC moved to dismiss the complaint and intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Fauley Court Will Hold Final Approval Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Fauley court has certified a nationwide settlement class and will hold a final approval hearing. C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla. 2013); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014). Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily dismissed. In the Fauley case, the court in Illinois preliminarily approved a settlement under which MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and the date of the preliminary approval in August 2014. The Fauley court also certified a nationwide settlement class and will hold a final approval hearing. METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Robainas" and IAMAW Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. intends to defend these actions vigorously: Robainas v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and MetLife, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014); International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Plaintiffs filed these putative class action lawsuits on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies"). The complaints allege that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. MetLife intends to defend these actions vigorously. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Intoccia" Suit Over Shadow Insurance -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Andrew Intoccia, Sr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-03061-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendant engaged in various shadow insurance transactions in connection with its life insurance and annuity business, which were not properly reported on its mandatory statutory annual statement and not properly disclosed to its principal regulator, to its credit rating agencies, or to its customers. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a New York insurance company with its principal place of business located at 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166-0188. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith W. Miller, Esq. PERKINS COLE LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 262-6900 Facsimile: (212) 977-1649 E-mail: KeithMiller@perkinscoie.com - and - David J. Harth, Esq. John S. Skilton, Esq. Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Eric G. Barber, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. PERKINS COLE LLP One East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 663-7460 Facsimile: (608) 663-7499 E-mail: DHarth@perkinscoie.com JSkilton@perkinscoie.com TBums@perkinscoie.com JBowen@perkinscoie.com EBarber@perkinscoie.com FBowen@perkinscoie.com JBair@perkinscoie.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING LLP 30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6518 Facsimile: (651) 312-6618 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com - and - William R. Scherer Jr., Esq. Albert L. Frevola, Jr., Esq. Joshua D. Clark, Esq. CONRAD & SCHERER LLP 633 South Federal Highway, 8th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 462-5500 Facsimile: (954) 463-9244 E-mail: wscherer@conradscherer.com afrevola@conradscherer.com jclark@conradscherer.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, P A 191 03 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net gabramson@bm.net pmadden@bm.net - and - Kai H. Richter, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3278 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: krichter@nka.com MICHIGAN: Judge Won't Transfer Prisoner to New Facility ------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr. of the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division made a report and recommendation on the case of JOSEPH GREGORY DUNBAR, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PRELESNIK, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1100 (W.D. Mich.) The plaintiff Joseph Gregory Dunbar is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility (MTU), by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). Plaintiff initiated an action by filing a document entitled motion to file class action which the court construed as plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff alleged that he and others who are infected with Hepatitis C and B, as well as other prisoners who are infected with HIV, and kidney diseases face an imminent danger to their health at MTU, where MDOC officials refuse to remedy the contaminated water which has been continuously coming out of the fixtures yellowish to dark brown with the smell of raw sewage. Plaintiff's complaint named defendants Warden John Prelesnik, Acting Warden Cathleen Stoddard and MDOC Director Daniel H. Heyns as responsible for the alleged conditions and that it violates his right to safe drinking water. Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for preliminary injunction and restraining order, a one-page letter to the court which the clerk's office docketed as a motion to transfer to new facility, a motion for injunctive relief/restraining order, a motion for an evidentiary hearing and two letters to the court, each of which the clerk's office docketed as a motion to transfer to new facility. Magistrate Judge Brennman recommended that plaintiff's motions be denied and that any further papers filed by the plaintiff requesting transfer to a federal facility be rejected. A copy of Magistrate Judge Brenneman's report and recommendation dated March 11, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/3xelAbfrom Leagle.com Joseph Gregory Dunbar #129278, plaintiff, Pro Se Defendant, represented by: Kevin R. Himebaugh, MI Dept Attorney General G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor 525 W. Ottaw St. P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: 517-373-1110 Facsimile: 517-373-3042 MINISTRY HEALTH: June 12 Fairness Hearing on "Dexter" Accord ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge William M. Conley of the Western District of Wisconsin granted plaintiffs' motion in the case ROSELYN DEXTER, ERIKA DORN and REBECCA MADER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MINISTRY HEALTH CARE and AFFINITY HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants NO. 14-CV-087-WMC (W.D. Wis.) On February 10, 2014, former plaintiff Tammy Dvorak filed a putative class action, asserting wage and hour claims on behalf of herself and a group of current and former employees of defendants. On March 14, an amended complaint added named plaintiffs Roselyn Dexter, Erika Dorn and Rebecca Mader. Original plaintiff Dvorak's individual claims were later resolved, and she has been dismissed from the case. Plaintiffs Roselyn Dexter, Erika Dorn and Rebecca Mader allege that defendants failed to pay their employees for all hours worked, mainly by requiring them to remain on-call or to work during lunch breaks without compensation. On February 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of their proposed settlement agreement, in which defendants join. For purposes of settlement, the parties also jointly ask the court to certify a class of nonexempt professional/technical employees who worked at defendants' hospital from February 10, 2012, until February 9, 2014, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Judge Conley granted the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The joint stipulation for Rule 23 certification is granted. The court appoints Gill & Gill, S.C. and The Previant Law Firm, S.C. as class counsel, finding all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) met. The court appoints named plaintiffs Roselyn Dexter, Erika Dorn and Rebecca Mader as class representatives. The court approves the proposed settlement notice and directs counsel to ensure distribution of the notice, consistent with the settlement agreement. The court approves the following settlement procedure and timeline: a. No later than April 15, 2015, class counsel shall arrange for the mailing of the notices to the class members. b. The notices shall provide that class members will have until May 15, 2015, to exclude themselves from the settlement or otherwise object. c. The court will hold a fairness hearing on June 12, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. A copy of Judge Conley's opinion and order dated March 25, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/h70NFPfrom Leagle.com Roselyn Dexter, Plaintiff, represented by Barry Phillip Gill -- bpgill@gillandgillsc.com -- Gregory B. Gill, Sr. -- gillsr@gillandgillsc.com -- at Gill & Gill SC Roselyn Dexter, Plaintiff, represented by: Nathan Dane Eisenberg THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM SC 1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202 Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: 888-513-3592 Facsimile: 414-271-6308 Erika Dorn and Rebecca Mader, Plaintiffs, represented by Barry Phillip Gill -- bpgill@gillandgillsc.com -- Gregory B. Gill, Sr. -- gillsr@gillandgillsc.com -- at Gill & Gill SC - and- Nathan Dane Eisenberg THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM SC 1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202 Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: 888-513-3592 Facsimile: 414-271-6308 Ministry Health Care and Affinity Health System, Defendants, represented by Christopher L. Nickels -- christopher.nickels@quarles.com -- Sean M. Scullen -- sean.scullen@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady LLP - and - Nathan Dane Eisenberg THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM SC 1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202 Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: 888-513-3592 Facsimile: 414-271-6308 NEW BUBBLE: Faces "Carillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Gonzalo Cora Carrillo and Cristino Carrillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Bubble Shop Inc., New Golden Village Oriental Supermarket Inc., Fan Hong, Li Ying Li and John Does #1-3, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-03165 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 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 bakery located at 365 Central Park Avenue, Scarsdale, New York 10583. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Alison G. Lobban, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com lobban@peltonlaw.com NEW JERSEY DEVILS: Restrains Sale of Game Tickets, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Rey Olsen, Alex Olsen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Jersey Devils, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 02807-CCC-MF (D.N.J., April 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendant restrained competition to its box office sales. Specifically by, prohibiting season ticket subscribers from selling individual or blocks of game tickets, imposing extra contractual fees on season ticket holders, refusing to renew season ticket subscriptions to season ticket holders who sell individual game tickets into the secondary market and prohibiting ticker print outs at the discretion of the season ticket holder. New Jersey Devils, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company that operates The New Jersey Devils, a professional hockey franchise of the National Hockey League. The Plaintiff is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 2600 Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1K Jersey City, NJ 07306 Telephone: (201) 200-0900 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GeForce GTX 970, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Farley and Alexander Montgomery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nvidia Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-01800-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading representations of its NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 graphics processing units, that it operates with a 4 gigabyte pool of video random access memory (VRAM), 64 Raster Operations Pipelines (ROP), and 2048 kilobytes (KB) of L2 cache capacity. When in reality, the VRAM in the GTX 970 is divided into two separate pools of memory, with one high performance pool of 3.5GB VRAM, and a second nearly unusable pool of 0.5GB VRAM, it contains only 56 ROP, and it only has 1792KB of L2 cache capacity. Nvidia Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Santa Clara, California. It is a visual computing company and is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling, and distributing computing equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Audet, Esq. Jonas P. Mann, Esq. Theodore H. Chase, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com jmann@audetlaw.com tchase@audetlaw.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Benjamin S. Branda, Esq. Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Ste. 1605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com bbranda@wbmllp.com enafisi@wbmllp.com OMAHA, NE: Judge Strikes Down "Swift" Plaintiff's Motions --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John M. Gerrard of the District of Nebraska denied plaintiff's requests in the case CHARLES SWIFT, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD KYLER, Defendant, NO. 8:14-CV-243 (D. Neb.) Plaintiff Charles Swift filed a complaint and, with the leave of the court, had now filed a supplement to the complaint. But before the court can make any actions, Swift has also, without the leave of the court, filed a document captioned "Amended Complaint" outside the time permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), a "Reply to Answer to Amended Complaint", again without leave to do so. Swift's "amended complaint" contains several requests, the first of which is a request to certify a class action, a request for counsel to be appointed to represent the class and a request discovery. Swift also filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Judge Gerrard ordered Swift not to file any amended pleadings, or supplements to his pleadings, without first getting leave of the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) and NECivR 15.1.2. Swift's motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice. Swift is ordered not to file another motion for summary judgment until after the defendant files an answer and the Court enters a case progression order. Swift's request for class certification is denied. Swift's request for appointment of counsel is denied. Swift's request for discovery is denied as premature. Swift is ordered not to file any discovery motions until after the defendant files an answer and the court enters a case progression order. Swift's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Swift is ordered to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of the court. A copy of Judge Gerrard's order dated March 23, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/RbglUNfrom Leagle.com Charles Swift, Plaintiff, Pro Se Kyler, Defendant, represented by Ryan J. Wiesen, CITY OF OMAHA and Thomas O. Mumgaard, CITY OF OMAHA OWT INDUSTRIES: Recalls Electric Blower Vacuums Due to Burn Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with OWT Industries Inc., of Pickens, S.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 225,000 Expert Gardener electric blower vacuums in the United States. (Models 20254EG and 20254EGC of this product were previously recalled in February 2013.). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The blower vacuum can overheat, spark and catch on fire posing fire and burn hazards. This recall involves Expert Gardener 12 amp electric blower vacuums with model numbers 20254EG, 20254EGA, 20254EGB, 20254EGBC, 20254EGC and 21254EG. Model numbers are located on a label on the left side of the motor housing. The blower vacuums are green and black. "Expert Gardener" and "Blower Vac 2 Speed Quiet 150 MPH Powerful 220 MPH" are printed on the side of the green motor housing and on the black plastic blower tube. OWT has received 16 reports of blower vacuums sparking, arcing, smoking or burning. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/H5SR3K The recalled products were manufactured in China by Changzhou Globe Tools Co. Ltd. and Cixi City Best Power Tools Co., Ltd., of China and sold at Walmart stores nationwide and online at www.walmart.com from January 2012 through March 2015 for about $40. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower vacuums and return them to any Walmart store for a full refund. PETSMART INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Blind-Accessible POS --------------------------------------------------------------- National Federation of the Blind, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Kevan Scott, Yolanda Thompson, Heather Albright, Kristi Durham, Amy Ruell, and Mark Cadigan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Petsmart, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00839 (D. Colo., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide point of sale devices that have tactile keypad or alternative means of nonvisual access, in order to purchase merchandise with a debit card, or obtain cash back through a debit or credit card purchase, that require a blind or visually impaired customer to disclose his/her private PIN to the cashier, or to someone else. Petsmart, Inc. owns and operates 1,311 retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jana Eisinger, Esq. Douglas W. Lambalot, Esq. MARTINEZ LAW GROUP, P.C. 720 South Colorado Boulevard South Tower, Suite 1020 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 597-4000 E-mail: eisinger@mlgrouppc.com lambalot@mlgrouppc.com - and - Scott C. LaBarre, Esq. LABARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1660 South Albion Street, Suite 918 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 504-5979 E-mail: slabarre@labarrelaw.com - and - Kevin W. Williams, Esq. COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION LEGAL PROGRAM 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 336-3584 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org PHILIP MORRIS: Faces Setback in Two Tobacco Cases in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ Caroline Sparks at Courthouse News Service reports that dealing twin blows to Philip Morris, the Florida Supreme Court ordered the retrial of one case and revived the $6 million verdict in another. The rulings settle a division between the state's intermediate appeals courts on how the statute of repose applies to claims by longtime smokers. Tina Russo is the plaintiff in the first case, standing in for her mother, Phyllis Frazier, who died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during the case's proceedings. A trial court in Miami had granted Philip Morris final judgment against Frazier based on a jury's findings about a four-year statute of limitations. The 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in 2012, however, because it found that Frazier passed the requirement in the statute of repose to introduce evidence of deceptive statements or omissions occurring after May 5, 1982. That date triggered the 12-year statute-of-repose window governing fraud claims because it is when the class in Engle v. Liggett Group Inc. filed suit. Affirming on April 2, the Florida Supreme Court emphasized "that evidence of reliance need not be established within the fraud statute of repose period." "PM USA and R.J. Reynolds' requested jury instruction would have precluded the jury from considering any evidence of reliance prior to the repose period," Justice Peggy Quince wrote for the unanimous court. The court cited this holding in another opinion April 2 that reinstates a jury's $6.26 million verdict for Elaine Hess, whose husband, Stuart Hess, died of lung cancer in 1996. In holding otherwise, the 4th District Court of Appeal had cited the jury's finding that Philip Morris defrauded Hess' husband by an omission before May 5, 1982, predating the 12-year window under the statute of repose. The high court's reversal meanwhile says that "it is not necessary that the smoker relied during the twelve-year repose period." "Where there is evidence of the defendant's wrongful conduct within the repose period, the statute of repose will not bar a plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim," Quince wrote. Though Hess need not show that her husband relied during the repose period, she did present "evidence of PM USA's fraudulent concealment conduct within the statute of repose period," the ruling states. "Because we conclude that PM USA was precluded from raising the fraud statute of repose defense to Mrs. Hess's fraudulent concealment claim, the jury verdict should not have been disturbed on appeal," Quince concluded. Though tobacco companies first hired scientists who linked cancer to smoking in 1953, they issued "A Frank Statement" shortly thereafter that said smoking cigarettes was safe. In 1983, a spokesperson for the Tobacco Industry told a jury, "I don't think that there has been a causal relationship established between cigarette smoking and any other disease." A tobacco spokesperson also said in 1984, "It is not known whether cigarettes cause cancer." The surgeon general's 1998 report about nicotine addiction meanwhile prompted the Tobacco Institute to say "it has not been established that cigarette smoking produces a physical dependence to nicotine." Five years before the tobacco companies admitted in 1999 that smoking was harmful, tobacco company executives testified under oath before Congress in 1994 that nicotine was not addictive and that "it has not been proven that cigarette smoking causes cancer." Petitioner Elaine Hess is represented by: John Stewart Mills, Esq. Courtney Rebecca Brewer, Esq. THE MILLS LAW FIRM, P.A. 203 North Gadsden Street, Suite 1A Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 765-0897 Facsimile: (850) 270-2474 E-mail: jmills@mills-appeals.com cbrewer@mills-appeals.com - and - Gary Mark Paige, Esq. TROP & AMEEN, P.A. 10650 W. State Road 84, Suite 210 Davie, FL 33324-4235 Telephone: (954) 433-3333 Facsimile: (954) 421-7030 E-mail: garyp216@aol.com - and - Adam Trop, Esq. TROP & AMEEN, P.A. 3860 W Commercial Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-3326 Telephone: (954) 981-7150 Facsimile: (954) 981-7350 E-mail: adamtrop@aol.com - and - Bruce S. Rogow, Esq. Tara A. Campion, Esq. BRUCE S. ROGOW, P.A. Broward Financial Centre, Suite 1930 500 East Broward Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 767-8909 Facsimile: (954) 764-1530 E-mail: brogow@rogowlaw.com tcampion@rogowlaw.com - and - Alex Alvarez, Esq. THE ALVAREZ LAW FIRM 355 Palermo Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 E-mail: alex@aalvarezlawfirm.com - and - Marvin Weinstein, Esq. 777 Arthur Godfrey Rd., Suite 208 Miami Beach, FL 33140-3449 Telephone: (305) 673-3000 Facsimile: (305) 531-1708 E-mail: michele@gwtatlaw.com Respondent Philip Morris USA, Inc. is represented by: Joseph Hagedorn Lang, Jr., Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. PO Box 3239 Tampa, FL 33601-3239 Telephone: (813) 229-4253 Facsimile: (813) 229-4133 E-mail: jlang@cfjblaw.com - and - Andrew Scott Brenner, Esq. Patricia Melville, Esq. Luis Eduardo Suarez, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33131-2124 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (305) 539-1307 E-mail: abrenner@bsfllp.com pmelville@bsfllp.com lsuarez@bsfllp.com - and - Raoul G. Cantero, III, Esq. John-Paul Rodriguez, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP Southeast Financial Center 200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900 Miami, FL 33131-2346 Telephone: (305) 371-2700 Facsimile: (305) 358-5744 E-mail: raoul.cantero@whitecase.com jrodriguez@whitecase.com Amicus Curiae Engle is represented by: Steven L. Brannock, Esq. Celene Harrell Humphries, Esq. Tyler K. Pitchford, Esq. BRANNOCK & HUMPHRIES 100 S Ashley Dr., Suite 1130 Tampa, FL 33602-5304 Telephone: (813) 223-4300 Facsimile: (813) 262-0604 E-mail: sbrannock@bhappeals.com chumphries@bhappeals.com tyler.pitchford@gmail.com The Hess case is Elaine Hess, etc., Petitioner v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Respondent, Case No. SC12-2153, in the Supreme Court of Florida. PLATINUM COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moises Sandoval, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Platinum Communications Co. and Mastec North America, Inc. a/k/a and d/b/a Mastec Advanced Technologies, Case No. 7:15- cv-00182 (S.D. Tex., April 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay their field service technicians (Service Techs) proper overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Platinum Communications Co. is a regional sales and installation company that provides satellite and cable installation for commercial and residential establishments throughout Texas. Mastec North America, Inc. is a Florida Corporation with its principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida, that operates one of the largest DirecTV installation and service companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Kevin Burke, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP 3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850 McAllen, TX 78501 Telephone: (956) 682-5999 Facsimile: (888) 317-8802 E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com POLYCOM INC: Securities Complaint Must Be Amended, Court Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge partially dismissed, with leave to amend, a securities class action against Polycom, a San Jose-based telecom. Lead plaintiff Mark Nathanson's lawsuit, like another one filed by Polycom shareholders in January, claims that former CEO Andrew Miller claimed reimbursements for "numerous extravagant business expenses with no legitimate business purpose." After auditors reported the improper expenses and Miller resigned, Polycom's stock price dropped by 15 percent, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti wrote in his April 3 order granting in part and denying in motions to dismiss. Conti dismissed the January lawsuit because the plaintiffs "failed to allege demand futility with particularity." Mark Nathanson "takes a different tack," Conti wrote, by claiming that Miller and Polycom's CFOs publicly reported false and misleading operating expenses and made such false statements in SEC filings. Conti found that Nathanson rightly claimed that the expense reports were materially misleading, because public knowledge of Miller's improper spending would have significantly altered shareholders' decisions. But he said that Polycom's allegedly false SEC filings were not actionable, because the "central thrust" of Nathanson's allegations "is that Polycom's board failed to correctly assess the adequacy of its internal controls -- not that it sought to deceive investors about the quality of those controls." "In short, these allegations are simply insufficient to give rise to a claim of securities fraud," Conti wrote. Conti also found that Nathanson failed to argue that Polycom's CFOs intentionally misled shareholders, as evidence indicates "not that they were complicit in Miller's misconduct or misleading shareholders, but rather that they too were duped by Miller." He found that Nathanson's claims on that topic do not allege "anything more than speculation" about the CFOs' state of mind, so he dismissed those claims. Conti also dismissed Nathanson's claims against Polycom as a company because Miller's deceptive intention cannot be imputed to the whole corporation. However, Nathanson sufficiently pleaded that Polycom primarily violated securities laws and that Miller's misbehavior was the cause of the company's drop in stock value. He gave Nathanson 30 days to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Keith Eggleton, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 320-4893 Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com The case is Mark Nathanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polycom, Inc., Andrew M. Miller, Michael R. Kourey, and Eric F. Brown, Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PRECISION OPINION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephan Zouras LLP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Precision Opinion, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 03507 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls using an automatic telephone dialing system. Precision Opinion, Inc. Nevada with its principal place of business located at 101 Convention Center Drive, Plaza 125, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109, that operates one of the largest market research data collection firms in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq. Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 E-mail: isalam@siprut.com jsiprut@siprut.com PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Christopherson" Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Christopherson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00632 (W.D. Wash., April 21, 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: Matthew J. Ide, Esq. IDE LAW OFFICE 7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Telephone: (206) 625-1326 E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com - and - Daniel J. Wasserberg, Esq. MEIROWITZ & WASSERBERG, LLP 845 Third Ave., 11th Flr. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 897-1988 Facsimile: (646) 432-6887 E-mail: dw@mwinjurylaw.com - and - Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW OFFICES 17 Miles Road Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (800) 934-2921 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Flushes Bid to Dismiss "Belfiore" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York denied defendant's motions in the case ANTHONY BELFIORE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 14-CV- 4090 (E.D.N.Y.) The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) manufactures bath tissues and wipes under the Charmin label. The packaging of Freshmates, part of the Charmin label, advertises Freshmates as flushable wipes, that are flushable, septic safe and safe for sewer and septic systems. The packaging provides one suggestion, "for best results, flush only one or two wipes at a time." Plaintiff purchased freshmates from a supermarket and he viewed the package and the price. He flushed one to two freshmates at a time down the toilet in his Great Neck, New York residence. Toilet clogging and sewer back-up resulted from flushing the freshmates. A plumber removed them from the residence's plumbing, charging $526.83. Plaintiff filed a case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. On July 1, 2014, the case was removed to the Eastern District of New York, based on jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Plaintiff claims that defendant violated New York General Business Law section 349 by holding out the product as flushable and septic safe, plaintiff requests monetary damages and a permanent injunction to prevent and enjoin defendant from representing freshmates as flushable. He seeks to represent, as a class, all persons and entities residing in the State of New York who, at any time within the applicable statute of limitations purchased charmin freshmates flushable wipes. Defendant moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), to dismiss the claim for injunctive relief for lack of standing, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and moved to strike plaintiff's class action-related allegations under Rule 12(f). Judge Weinstein denied defendant's motions. A copy of Judge Weinstein's memorandum and order dated March 25, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/nFZuS8from Leagle.com Anthony Belfiore on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, plaintiff, represented by Lester L. Levy -- llevy@wolfpopper.com -- Michele Fried Raphael -- mraphael@wolfpopper.com -- Roy Herrera -- Matthew Insley-Pruitt -- MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- at Robert Scott Plosky Wolf, Popper, LLP The Procter & Gamble Company defendant, represented by Emily Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- Andrew D. Schau -- aschau@cov.com -- Claire Catalano Dean -- ccdean@cov.com -- Cortlin Lannin -- clannin@cov.com -- Sonya Winner -- at Covington & Burling LLP S & K EXPRESS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S & K Express LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00043 (D.N.D., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. S & K Express LLC owns and operates a freight shipping and trucking company doing business within the State of North Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Lawrence Mintz, Esq. ANDREW L. MINTZ, PLLC 2603 Augusta, Suite 880 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 780-7100 E-mail: andrew@almintzlawfirm.com - and - Joseph Y. Ahmad, Esq. Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. 1221 McKinney St., Suite 3460 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 SAFI-G INC: Faces "Velasquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberlyn Velasquez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Safi-G, Inc. (d/b/a Caffe Buon Gusto) and Nasser Ghorchian, Case No. 1:15-cv-03068 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com SNACK FACTORY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Seidman" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge James I. Cohn of the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss in the case JOSHUA SEIDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SNACK FACTORY, LLC, etc., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-62547-CIV-COHN/SELTZER (S.D. Fla.) The plaintiff Joshua Seidman purchased defendant's pretzel crisps approximately 4-5 times from one or more public supermarkets located in Weston, Broward County, Florida. His purchased included the Sea Salt and Cracked Pepper and Garlic Parmesan flavors. Plaintiff sues defendant for trying to pass its products off as "all natural" even though they are not. Plaintiff alleges that they contain unnatural, synthetic and/or artificial ingredients, including but not limited to maltodextrin, soybean oil and in at least one variety, dextrose and caramel color. Plaintiff alleges that he paid a price premium for the products because of their "all natural" ingredients. Had he known the crisps were not truly natural, he would not have purchased the products. Plaintiff sues on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated alleging that defendant violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. Sections 501.201, et seq.; Negligent Misrepresentation; Breach of Express Warranty; Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq.; and Unjust Enrichment. As part of his FDUTPA claim, plaintiff asks the court for an order enjoining the wrongful acts and practices. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, arguing that all of plaintiff's claims must fail because he does not plausibly allege any harm experienced due to defendant's alleged misrepresentations. Defendant contends that plaintiff's demands for injunctive and declaratory relief are not proper and defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's MMWA claim because the all natural labels at issue do not constitute an express warranty as the act requires. District Judge Cohn granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's class action complaint. Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice. Defendant's arguments concerning class certification are at this time denied without prejudice and may be reasserted at the class certification stage. Defendant's Motion is denied in all other respects. A copy of Judge Cohn's order dated March 26, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/4zFf5Tfrom Leagle.com Joshua Seidman, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James Pascucci -- MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com -- Joshua Harris Eggnatz -- JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com -- at The Eggnatz Law Firm, P.A. SNACK FACTORY, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Kiran H. Mehta -- kiran.mehta@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders LLP; Robert J. Cousins -- rcousins@qpwblaw.com -- at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer SAN PEDRO MANUFACTURING: Recalls Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with San Pedro Manufacturing Company, Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 4,800 Mattresses and Mattresses with Foundations. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The mattresses and foundations fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame standard, posing a fire hazard. The rebuilt mattresses and mattresses with foundations come in twin, full, queen and king sizes. They come in a variety of fabrics and colors, and have a white federal tag and yellow state tag with "San Pedro Manufacturing Company, 1041 La Grange Blvd, Atlanta, Georgia 30336" sewn at the foot of the mattress. All mattresses sold separately and all mattress and foundation sets are being recalled. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/RifnUs The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at A1 Mattress and Furniture, Affordable Furniture, Beds Beds Beds, Bruce Furniture and Thrift, Checkouts, Christian Outreach, Fowlers Furniture, Greenbrier Furniture, Larry Rhodes, Mattress and Furniture Outlet, Mattress and Furniture Warehouse, Mattress Barn, Save Big Mattress and Unclaimed Freight from May 2013 through January 2014 for between $80 and $400. Consumers should immediately contact San Pedro Manufacturing Company and arrange for the mattress to be picked up, rebuilt to compliant federal flammability standards and returned to consumer. SCIARETTI SITE: "Pierce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Pierce, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. Sciaretti Site Development & Paving Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00524 (W.D. Pa., April 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Sciaretti Site Development & Paving Co., Inc. provides a range of construction services to private and governmental entities throughout western Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. 100 First Avenue, Suite 1010 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com SMITH & NEPHEW: Court Gives Patient Chance to Re-Plead Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled on the parties' motions in the case WALTER SHUKER, et al. v. SMITH & NEPHEW PLC, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13- 6158 (E.D. Pa.) Defendants design and manufacture medical devices for use in hip replacement and hip resurfacing procedures. Defendants' hip replacement systems include the R3 Acetabular System (R3 System). The R3 System is a Class II medical device which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized defendants to market in the United States pursuant to what is known as the Section 510(k) process. Defendants also manufacture the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) System, a Class III hip resurfacing system. On April 29, 2009, Walter Shuker underwent right total hip replacement surgery in which his surgeon, Kevin Terefenko, M.D., implanted the product manufactured by defendants. Approximately 21 months after his surgery, Mr. Shuker began developing increasing pain and discomfort in his buttocks, groin, and thigh, limiting his daily activities. On May 23, 2011, he underwent an aspiration procedure, performed by Dr. Terefenko, during which a milky brown tinged fluid and metallic debris were removed from his body. Mr. Shuker underwent two more surgeries just to alleviate the pain and remove and replace the R3 system. Almost a year after Mr. Shuker's surgery to replace the metal-on- metal articulation of the components originally implanted, defendants announced they had chosen to withdraw the optional metal liner component within the R3 Acetabular System. In September 2013, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. S&N removed the case to federal court the following month and, after answering the complaint, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Following a Rule 16 conference at which plaintiffs indicated their desire to amend their complaint, the court granted plaintiffs leave to amend and denied S&N's motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, asserting claims for negligence/negligence per se, negligence based on violations of various FDA regulations, strict products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability, fraud, and loss of consortium. S&N thereafter filed a motion to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs' claims were expressly preempted by the preemption provision of the MDA, 21 U.S.C. Section 360k, and were inadequately pleaded insofar as plaintiffs attempted to assert a nonpreempted negligence claim premised on violations of FDA regulations. The court denied the motion to dismiss. The court, however, amended the scheduling order to permit the parties to take discovery on the preemption issue, following which S&N could to renew its preemption argument in a motion for summary judgment. S&N has now renewed its preemption argument on summary judgment, asserting plaintiffs' claims are preempted and their attempt to plead a nonpreempted parallel claim remains unavailing. After S&N filed its summary judgment motion, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to clarify the regulatory history and status of the artificial hip implanted in Mr. Shuker, to refine causes of action based on defendants' active promotion of off-label uses of their products, and to clarify their parallel claims. Judge Sanchez dismissed the second amended complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend as to their claims based on off-label promotion. A copy of Judge Sanchez's memorandum dated March 31, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/umF4MJfrom Leagle.com Plaintiffs, represented by: Eric G. Zajac, Esq. Robert L. Astrachan, Esq. ZAJAC ARIAS & TRICHON PC 1835 Market Street, 26th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-575-7615 Facsimile: 215-575-7640 SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., Defendant, represented by CHARLES E. LEASURE, III --leasurec@pepperlaw.com -- at PEPPER HAMILTON LLP; DAVID W. O'QUINN --doquinn@irwinllc.com -- JAMES B. IRWIN, V -- jirwin@irwinllc.com -- at IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE LLC; MICHAEL T. SCOTT -- mscott@reedsmith.com -- JOSEPH J MAHADY -- jmahady@reedsmith.com -- at REED SMITH LLP SONORA QUEST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Shields" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Shawna Shields, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sonora Quest Laboratories, LLC and RSI Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00723-SPL (D. Ariz., April 21, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of placing non-emergency calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers, without prior express consent, using an automatic telephone dialing system. Sonora Quest Laboratories, LLC is an Arizona Limited Liability Company that provides medical laboratory tests. RSI Enterprises, Inc. engages in debt collection on behalf of Sonora Quest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, Esq. David McDevitt, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com ST. TAMMANY: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- James Cook, an individual v. St. Tammany Workforce Solutions, LLC and ABC Insurance Co., Case No. 2:15-cv-01297 (E.D. La., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, damages, penalties and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. St. Tammany Workforce Solutions, LLC owns and operates a staffing agency and runs a halfway house owned by the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office. ABC Insurance Co. is an insurance company and is known to be the insurer of St. Tammany Workforce Solutions, LLC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra Erna Mora, Esq. Walter F. Wolf III, Esq. Matthew P. Woodard, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA MORA 322 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 566-0233 E-mail: amora@alexmora.com wolf@alexamora.com woodard@alexamora.com STRIPE A ZONE: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- David Adams, Harold Black, and Willard Soils, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Stripe A Zone, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00532 (E.D. Tex., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Stripe A Zone, Inc. is a Texas based parking lot striping company that specializes in pavement marking. The Plaintiff is represented by: Harry Bob Whitehurst, Esq. 102 N College, Suite 808 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 593-5588 Facsimile: (214) 853-9382 E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Raul Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Successful Management Corp., 656 Realty, LLC, 370 Manhattan Avec. Co., LLC, Edwin Algarin, Marc Edelstein, and Susan Edelstein, Case No. 1:15-cv-03089-AT (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The corporate defendants share a common commercial business purpose of leasing apartments to the general public. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com SUMO JAPANESE: "Mayfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Mayfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sumo Japanese Steakhouse and Sushi Bar, Inc. and Kobe Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00673 -SGC (N.D. Ala., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate hibachi style restaurants within the State of Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq. Robert J. Camp, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203-3204 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com rcamp@wigginschilds.com - and - Robert C. Epperson, Esq. PO Box 477 Foley, AL 36536 Telephone: (251) 943-8870 E-mail: repperson@rcelaw.com SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Entered Into MOU in BB&T Merger Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. ("Susquehanna") and BB&T Corporation ("BB&T") on February 25, 2015, entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of a putative consolidated class action captioned In re Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, No. CI-14-10817 (the "Actions"), pending before the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (the "Court"), Susquehanna said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015. The Actions relate to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 11, 2014, by and between BB&T and Susquehanna. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Susquehanna and BB&T agreed to make available additional information to Susquehanna shareholders. The additional information is contained in the supplement (the "Supplement") to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus of BB&T and Susquehanna, dated January 21, 2015 (the "Proxy Statement"). The Supplement should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement and the documents incorporated by reference therein. After reaching agreement on the substantive terms of the settlement, the parties also agreed that the plaintiffs may apply to the Court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be paid by Susquehanna, its successor in interest and/or its insurer. Susquehanna, BB&T, and the other defendants deny all of the allegations made by plaintiffs in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless, Susquehanna, BB&T, and the other defendants have agreed to settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation. SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Named ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court appointed interim co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in the case In re Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. "On December 1, 2014, Wayne Waldeck, one of the purported Susquehanna shareholders who sent a Demand Letter, filed a purported shareholder class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (the "Court") captioned Waldeck v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI- 14-10817 (the "Waldeck Action")," the Company said. "The Waldeck Action names as defendants each of the current members of Susquehanna's board of directors, which we refer to as the "Director Defendants," BB&T and names Susquehanna as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in connection with Susquehanna's proposed Merger with BB&T and also alleges that BB&T aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the Merger or, in the event the Merger is consummated, monetary damages allegedly resulting from the alleged wrongful conduct of the Director Defendants and BB&T." On December 23, 2014, Waldeck filed an amended complaint, adding allegations that the disclosures in the preliminary Form S-4 filed by BB&T on December 15, 2014 provides inadequate and/or materially misleading information. Five additional purported shareholder class action and derivative complaints challenging the merger have been filed in the Pennsylvania Court, all by purported shareholders who sent Demand Letters: Fred Bollinger & Skyles Calhoun v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI-14-11415 (filed Dec. 22, 2014); Linda & Wade Burkholder v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI-14-11473 (filed Dec. 23, 2014); James Farrell v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI-15-00137 (filed Jan. 8, 2015); William McGinley v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI-15-00135 (filed Jan. 8, 2015); and Dennis Palkon v. William J. Reuter, et al., No. CI- 15-00292 (filed Jan. 15, 2015) (such actions, together with the Waldeck Action and the Demand Letters, the "Actions"). On December 30, 2014, Plaintiffs Wayne Waldeck and Linda and Wade Burkholder filed a motion seeking to consolidate their actions and any other related shareholder actions under the caption In re Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, No. CI-14- 10817 and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs' counsel. The Court granted that motion on January 26, 2015. SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Preliminary Motions Pending in LBSF Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Preliminary motions are currently pending in the action filed by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. In September 2010, Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF") filed suit in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York against certain indenture trustees, certain special-purpose entities (issuers) and a class of noteholders and trust certificate holders who received distributions from the trustees, including Susquehanna, to recover funds that were allegedly improperly paid to the noteholders in forty-seven separate collateralized debt obligation transactions ("CDO"). "In June 2007, two of our affiliates each purchased $5.0 million in AAA rated Class A Notes of a CDO offered by Lehman Brothers Inc. Concurrently with the issuance of the notes, the issuer entered into a credit swap with LBSF. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("LBHI") guaranteed LBSF's obligations to the issuer under the credit swap. When LBHI filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, an Event of Default under the indenture occurred, and the trustee declared the notes to be immediately due and payable. Susquehanna was repaid its principal on the notes in September 2008," the Company said. "Preliminary motions are currently pending and the proceeding is in the early stages of discovery; thus it is not yet possible for us to estimate potential loss, if any. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management, after consultation with legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the aggregate liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, or cash flows; although, at the present time, management is not in a position to determine whether such proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any future quarterly reporting period," the Company said. SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Filed Answer in "Struett" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. filed an answer with affirmative defenses in the legal proceeding filed by Patricia Struett, Susquehanna said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On January 14, 2015, Patricia Struett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket No. 15-cv-00176-JFL. The Plaintiffs' complaint is a purported collective and class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations. The Plaintiffs allege the potential collective and class members worked as Residential Mortgage Bankers who were improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and state law and who worked more than 40 hours in any week without receiving all overtime compensation required by the FLSA and state law. This legal proceeding is in its early stages and discovery has not yet begun. Susquehanna filed an answer with affirmative defenses and is vigorously defending the claims asserted. "It is not yet possible for us to estimate potential loss, if any. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of financial liability with respect to this litigation, management, after consultation with legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the aggregate liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our results of operation, financial position, or cash flows," the Company said. TEXTRON INC: Ohio Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss UAW Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge David A. Katz of the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEXTRON, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14 CV 2112 (N.D. Ohio) In 1999, a group of retirees brought suit in this Court against their former employer defendant Textron, Inc., and the retirees' pension plans. The case was a purported class action on behalf of certain retirees of Textron's Lima and Fostoria plants. The retirees claimed that they met the eligibility requirements for the Section 2(c) early retirement permanent layoff benefit under the pension plan at issue. The Section 2(c) benefit is commonly referred to as the "Mutual and Satisfactory" or "M/S benefit." As part of the settlement efforts, the parties entered into and submitted to the court a tolling agreement, wherein the parties agreed to toll the statute of limitations for related claims of healthcare or other welfare benefits. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement, which the parties presented to the court for approval. Plaintiffs International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agriculture Implement Workers of America (UAW) and certain named individuals, bring this action against Textron Inc. and Textron Master Retirement Plan, alleging they were wrongfully denied life insurance and reimbursement for premiums paid for Medicare Part B under their respective pension plans. Defendants submit that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both res judicata and a settlement agreement previously entered into by the parties and approved by the court. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Defendants argue that the principles of res judicata and the prior Settlement Agreement bar Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs argue the preclusive intent of the parties according to the Settlement Agreement controls based on Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 371 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2004), and their claims are not barred because they are independent from the prior litigation. Judge Katz denied defendants motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Katz's memorandum opinion dated March 25, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/rF9qw5from Leagle.com Plaintiffs, represented by: Joan Torzewski, Esq. Harris, Reny & Torzewski 2 Maritime Plaza # 3 Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: 419-243-1105 Defendant, represented by, Johanna Fabrizio Parker -- jfparker@jonesday.com -- Stanley Weiner -- sweiner@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day TIME WARNER: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Shahriar Noorparvar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 02946 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendants unlawful practice if recording telephone conversation without the knowledge or consent of the other party. Time Warner Cable, Inc. owns and operates a cable telecommunications company whose primary corporate address is in New York, NY. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com TOMMIE COPPER: Falsely Marketed Copper Apparels, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- George Potzner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tommie Copper Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03183 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unfair and deceptive practice of advertising that the copper-infused fabric used in its athletic apparel releases ions, which may help reduce the oxidants in the body and is a natural, permanent anti- bacterial agent with skin benefits and speeds joint and muscle recovery and offers rejuvenating relief from aches and pains. Tommie Copper Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Westchester County. It develops, manufactures, markets and sells a line of sportswear and apparel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com tasen@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rashelquist@lockJaw.com rapeterson@lockJaw.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net bomarty@hudsonlaw.net - and - Erica Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com TORO COMPANY: Recalls Powers Mowers Due to Injury Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Toro Company of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 800 Walk behind power mower in the US and 100 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Mowers were assembled with an incorrect blade driver and blade combination, which can cause the blade to break, resulting in an injury hazard. The 2015 22-inch walk-behind power mower has a red base on four wheels, a black motor and handle, and a white bag attached for catching the clippings. A black plate on the front of the mower says "Toro Recycler 22." Model number 20337 and a serial number are located on a decal affixed to the rear of the machine. Recalled mowers have serial numbers ranging from 315000101 to 315000983. No consumer incidents have been reported. The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at Hardware, lawn and garden stores nationwide in February and March 2015 for about $450. Consumers should stop using the mowers immediately and contact a Toro dealer to schedule a free repair. TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Trek Bicycles Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Trek Bicycle Corporation, of Waterloo, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of about 900,000 Trek bicycles equipped with front disc brakes in the U.S. and 98,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. An open quick release lever on the bicycle's front wheel hub can come into contact with the front disc brake assembly, causing the front wheel to come to a sudden stop or separate from the bicycle, posing a risk of injury to the rider. This recall involves all models of Trek bicycles from model years 2000 through 2015 equipped with front disc brakes and a black or silver quick release lever on the front wheel hub that opens far enough to contact the disc brake. Bicycles with front quick release levers that do not open a full 180 degrees from the closed position, are not included in this recall. Trek reports three incidents, all including injuries. One incident resulted in quadriplegia. One incident resulted in facial injuries. One incident resulted in a fractured wrist. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/PsjgvL The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and China and sold at Bicycle stores nationwide from about September 1999 through April 2015 for between $480 and $1,650. Consumers should stop using the bicycles immediately and contact an authorized Trek retailer for free installation of a new quick release on the front wheel. Trek will provide each owner who participates in the recall with a $20 coupon that is redeemable by December 31, 2015 toward any Bontrager merchandise. (The coupon has no cash value.) TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Missouri Case Entered Into MOU ----------------------------------------------------------- TTM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2014, that the parties to the Missouri lawsuit entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed settlement that will terminate both Lawsuits upon entry of the final judgment. Since the public announcement on September 22, 2014 of the execution of the Merger Agreement, Viasystems, TTM, Merger Sub, and the members of the Viasystems Board have been named as defendants in two putative class action complaints challenging the Merger. The Missouri Lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri on September 30, 2014, and the Delaware Lawsuit, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on October 13, 2014, generally allege that the Merger fails to properly value Viasystems, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, and that those breaches were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub, and Viasystems. The Delaware Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other allegations, that (1) the Viasystems Board breached its fiduciary duties by: (a) agreeing to the Merger for grossly inadequate consideration, (b) agreeing to lock up the Merger with deal protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer for Viasystems, and (c) participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the Viasystems Board and management are divided; (2) the voting agreements entered into between TTM and certain of Viasystems' significant stockholders prevent Viasystems stockholders from providing a meaningful vote on the proposal to adopt the Merger; and (3) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub, and Viasystems. Further, the Missouri Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other allegations, that (1) the proposed Merger is unfair and the consideration to be paid in connection with the Merger is inadequate; (2) the Viasystems Board and Viasystems' management have a conflict of interest due to the cash pool bonus and change in control payments to be made to certain executive officers and key employees if the Merger is consummated; and (3) the Merger Agreement contains impermissible deal protection devices. The Lawsuits seek injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms therein, costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, as well as other equitable relief as the respective court deems proper. The Delaware Lawsuit also seeks: (1) in the event the Merger is consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment, rescissory damages as an alternative to rescission, and (2) an accounting by all defendants to the plaintiff and other members of the class for all damages caused by the defendants and for all profits and any special benefits obtained as a result of their alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. On January 6, 2015, the parties to the Missouri Lawsuit entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed settlement that will terminate both Lawsuits upon entry of the final judgment. The parties are in the process of negotiating this settlement agreement. Pursuant to the MOU, the settlement agreement will provide for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and releases of all claims and relief sought in both Lawsuits. TURNEY BROS: Faces "Burd' Suit Over Failure to Give Layoff Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Burd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Turney Bros Oilfield Services and Pipeline, LLC, Case No. 4:15- cv-00041-DLH-CSM (D.N.D., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with the recent Mass Layoff and Plant Closing at the Watford City, North Dakota site. The Defendants own and operate an oil and gas field services company with its principal place of business located at 401 Oklahoma Avenue, McAlester, Oklahoma 74501. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras Jr., Esq. HUNT, HASSLER, LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Refuses to Junk "Alexander" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge April 7 refused to dismiss a class action that claims United Behavioral Health wrongfully denies claims for mental illness and substance abuse-related outpatient treatment. The case is Gary Alexander, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, Case No. 3:14-cv-05337-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Lawsuit by VA Workers ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan G. Braden of the United States Court of Federal Claims granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case WALTER H. GARCIA, CRYSTAL McCOURT, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, NO. 13-1024 C (Fed. Cl.) Prior to the filing of the present case, two precedent cases, the Adams Class case and the DeMons class case, had been certified by the United States Federal Claims Court. On December 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging virtually the same violations as DeMons. Specifically, the action seeks the recovery of back pay and interest on behalf of the class of present and former employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, who regularly and customarily were scheduled to receive night and/or Saturday premium pay in the form of additional pay pursuant to Section 7454(a) or (b) of title 38 since July 1, 2012 but were not paid such additional pay whenever they used paid leave instead of working scheduled shifts which included night and/or Saturday hours since July 1, 2012. On September 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, and on February 9, 2015, the court certified a class of plaintiffs. On March 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed an uncontested motion, informing the court of an error in the class description and on April 1, 2015, the court struck its February 9, 2015 order. Judge Braden granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appoints Mr. Ira M. Lechner as class counsel. The opt-in class shall consist of persons who meet the following requirements: All General Schedule employees as defined by section 2105 of Title 5 who were not included in the class certified in Curry v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 328 (2008), and who were employed from July 1, 2012 or thereafter by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the Veterans Health Administration as one of the following occupations: (1) Certified or Registered Respiratory Therapist, Licensed Physical Therapist, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), Pharmacist, Occupational Therapist, or Graduate Nurse or Nurse Pending Graduation by the Veterans Health Administration; OR AS: Audiologist, Audiologist-Speech Pathologist, Speech Pathologist, Biomedical Engineer, Corrective Therapist, Dental Assistant, Dental Hygienist, Dental Technologist, Dietitian, Kinesiotherapist, Marriage and/or Family Therapist, Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor, Medical Instrument Technician, Medical Records Administrator or Specialist, Medical Records Technician, Medical Technologist, Nuclear Medicine Technologist, Nursing Assistant, Occupational Therapy Assistant, Orthotist or Orthotist-Prosthetist, Pharmacy AID/Technician, Physical Therapy Assistant, Prosthetic Representative, Psychologist, Diagnostic Radiologic Technician or Technologist, Therapeutic Radiologic Technician or Technologist, Social Worker, Blind Rehabilitation Specialist, or as a Blind Rehabilitation Outpatient Specialist; and (2) who regularly and customarily worked on a tour of duty any part of which was between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and/or within the period beginning midnight Friday and ending midnight Saturday (which did not include any Sunday hours); and (3) who received premium pay of 10% for each such hour of service between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454(a) or (b), and/or 25% or more pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454(a) or (b) for each such hour of service between midnight Friday and midnight Saturday; and(4) whose "pay" during periods of authorized paid leave pursuant to Chapter 63 of Title 5 for any part of such tour of duty between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., and/or between midnight Friday to midnight Saturday (which did not include any Sunday hours) was reduced in amounts equal to the night and/or Saturday premium pay pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454 to which such employees would have been paid had they performed their regular and customary work between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and/or on Saturdays instead of using authorized paid leave. The parties were directed to file a joint status report indicating how the case should proceed. A copy of Judge Braden's memorandum opinion and order dated April 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/I0xITMfrom Leagle.com WALTER H. GARCIA, Plaintiff, represented by: Ira M. Lechner, Esq. KATZ & RANZMAN, P.C. 4530 Wisconsin Ave NW #250 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: 202-659-4656 CRYSTAL McCOURT, on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated, Plaintiff, represented by: Ira M. Lechner, Esq. KATZ & RANZMAN, P.C. 4530 Wisconsin Ave NW #250 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: 202-659-4656 USA, Defendant, represented by: Hillary Adrienne Stern, Esq. U. S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: 202-514-2000 UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rasheme Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Music Group, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02960 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Universal Music Group is a recording company that finds and develops recording artists, publishes and records music, and distributes its merchandise all over the world through its various subsidiaries and maintains its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com - and - Maurice Pianko, Esq. PIANKO LAW GROUP, PLLC 30 Broad Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 801-9675 Facsimile: (646) 381-3612 E-mail: mpianko@gmail.com VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Sued for Charging High Electricity Premium Rate ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Steketee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Viridian Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00585 (D. Conn., April 22, 2015), alleges that the Defendants improperly charges an extraordinarily high premium rate for electricity regardless of fluctuations in the underlying market price. Viridian Energy, Inc. is a Nevada corporation whose principal place of business is located at 1055 Washington St., Stamford, CT 06901, that supplies of electric power to residential consumers in Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq. IZARD NOBEL, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6295 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com WATERLOO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Bike Hooks --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Waterloo Industries Inc., of Waterloo, Iowa, announced a voluntary recall of about 105,000 Husky(R) Securelock(TM) Vertical Bike Hooks in the U.S. and 15,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The mounted bike hooks can unexpectedly detach, allowing the bike to fall. This poses a risk of injury to bystanders. This recall involves Husky(R) Securelock(TM) vertical bike hooks used with a Husky Trackwall garage storage system. The 3 by 3.5 inch black metal plate is mounted to the grooves in the Trackwall and the bike's tire is attached to a hook protruding from the plate. There are no markings on the hook. The Trackwall has "Husky" printed on the lower left corner. The hook holds up to a 35 pound bike. The firm has received 22 reports of the bike hooks falling from the mounted Trackwall, including 12 reports of property damage to bicycles and/or nearby vehicles. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/hsDu4y The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold t Home Depot stores nationwide from April 2011 to March 2015 for about $9. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled hooks and return them to the nearest Home Depot store for a full refund. WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cross" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Kenisha Cross, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-01270 (N.D. Ga., April 21, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of placing non-emergency calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers, without prior express consent, using an automatic telephone dialing system. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a multinational banking and financial services holding company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC 2300 Henderson Mill Road, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30345 Telephone: 404-365-4460 Facsimile: 855-415-2480 E-mail: www.EhrlichLawOffice.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. Greenwald Davidson, Esq, RADBIL PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-3912 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: "Murray' Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Murray, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc. and Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00634 (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of selling and soliciting time share properties and vacation packages in the State of Florida and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis A. Creed III, Esq. Joseph Odato, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A. Westshore Center 1715 N Westshore Blvd Ste 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com jodato@ffmlawgroup.com YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Viking VI Models Due to Injury Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Yamaha Motor Corporation, of Cypress, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of Yamaha Viking VI. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The rear wheels can loosen and cause the rear end of the vehicle to wobble or the rear wheels to come off and cause the vehicle to crash, resulting an injury or death hazard. This recall involves 2015 model YXC700DF (Viking VI), YXC700DHFH (Viking VI Hunter), YXC700PF (Viking VI EPS) and YXC700PHFH (Viking VI EPS Hunter) side x side vehicles. Model numbers can be found on the owner's manual. The letter F in the 10th position of the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) indicates that the vehicle is 2015 model. The VIN is stamped on the frame behind the left rear wheel. The "Viking VI" model name is printed on the left side of the front hood. The vehicles come in Realtree (multicolor), hunter green, red and steel blue. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://goo.gl/E0IYIR The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Yamaha side x side dealerships nationwide from June 2014 through March 2015 for $12,800 to $14,600. Consumers should immediately stop using the vehicles and contact their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free repair. Yamaha is contacting all registered owners directly. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settled Meridian Funds Case ------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation has settled the Meridian Funds case, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company said, "Putative class actions and similar claims that were outstanding at December 31, 2014 included the following: * a complaint relating to our banking relationships with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices in which the plaintiff seeks a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et. al., pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and * a complaint arising from our banking relationships with Frederick Berg and a number of investment funds controlled by him using the "Meridian" brand name, in which the liquidating trustee for the funds seeks an award from us, on the basis of aiding and abetting and other claims, for monetary damages suffered by victims of a fraud allegedly perpetrated by Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et. al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington." "In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. The plaintiff appealed the District Court decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit had not ruled on the appeal as of February 2015. In February 2015, the Company settled the Meridian Funds case. The settlement award was substantially covered by our recorded accruals for legal risks as of December 31, 2014 included in our consolidated financial statements." ********* 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 * * *