/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150507.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 7, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 91 Headlines ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Product Liability Case AGRESERVES INC: Deadline to File Responsive Pleading on May 10 AIR CANADA: Passengers Mull Class Action Over Crash Landing Trauma ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Class Action Parties Executed Stipulation ALTERRA EXCESS: June 26 Status Conference in World Fuel Suit Set AMERICAN CAPITAL: Court Issued Show Cause Order AMERICAN REALTY: Court Tosses Bid to Remand Wunsch Class Action ANTHEM LIFE: Removes "Smilow" Class Suit to E.D. New York AOL INC: May 29 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Derby" Suit ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: No Ruling Yet on Case Dismissal Bid AT&T SERVICES: Faces "Meador" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Removes "Voronov" Suit to D. New Jersey BAYER: Class Seeks Riceland Gross Recovery in Settlement BLOOMINGDALES INC: Faces "Ashkenazi" Class Suit in New Jersey BROOKSAMERICA MORTGAGE: Final Judgment Entered in "Peel" Case C&R DOWNHOLE: Faces "Blackford" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CALIFORNIA: "Dupree" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice CAPITAL ONE: Settles Car Repo Class Action for $4.4 Million CARBONITE INC: Fails to Backup Consumers Computer Data, Suit Says CENTURY ALUMINUM: Retiree Medical Benefits Case Trial Ongoing CHAPEI LLC: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Masters" Action CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Garcia" Action CLEAN HARBORS: Fairness Hearing Anticipated to Occur in May 2015 CLEAN HARBORS: 17 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed CRST VAN: 9th Cir. Reverses Dist. Court Ruling in "Cole" Case D'ARCY BUICK: Faces "Salcedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DIRECTV: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing Tactics DR WELL: Faces "Kirk" Suit in Pa. Over Failure to Pay Overtime EASY ACCESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer' Suit Claims EOG RESOURCES: Faces "Boudreaux" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT FEDERAL FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hussin" Suit Says FOOD MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Termination Pay FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports FORD MOTOR: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dist. Court Ruling in Bayshore Case FORT COLLINS, CO: Reveals Panhandling Settlement Details GALILEE MEMORIAL: Lawyers Get Access to Cemetery Grounds GENERAL CABLE: Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Due GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Alleging Zofran-Related Injuries GOOGLE INC: Court Wants Documents in Privacy Suit to be Sealed HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Kings' First Amended Class Action Dismissed INTERTHINX INC: Obtains Final Judgment on "Shaw" Suit Settlement INTUIT INC: Faces "Knoch" Suit Over Illegal Tax Return Filing JACO OIL: De Santos Gets OK to File First Amended Complaint JAGUAR ENERGY: Removes "Combs" Suit to Colorado District Court JB HUNT: "Wheat" Suit Transferred From N.D. to C.D. California K&L GATES: Hearing on "Siegal" Suit Settlement Moved to May 21 KENT'S MEATS: Duckworth to Amend Case to Omit Wage/Hour Claims KEYCORP: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Litigation Denied KING DIGITAL: Faces Securities Class Action in California KPMG: Settles PIF Class Action for Up to $30 Million LATSHAW DRILLING: "Meadows 1" Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas LATSHAW DRILLING: "Meadows 2" Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims LITESPEED ELECTRIC: Fires Worker Who Cried Race Bias, Suit Claims LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Group of Residents Opposes Tainted-Water Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Chavez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Loup" Class Suit to E.D. Louisiana MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Faces Class Suit Over Game Packages MARINE SPILL: Wilson May Amend BELO Complaint to Demand Jury MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid to Supplement Record in "Bond" Case Tossed MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Securities Class Action Dismissed MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: "Steinberg" Lawsuit in Preliminary Stage MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Klein v. Cubbin Case in Preliminary Stage MGM RESORTS: Class Action Parties Agreed to Extend Deadlines MGM RESORTS: No Trial Date Set in MGM MIRAGE Securities Suit MICHAELS STORES: "Gettings" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to N.J. MIDWEST SPORTING: Faces "Gaines" Suit Alleging Job Discrimination MISSISSIPPI: Judge Hears Arguments in MDOC Prisoner Safety Suit MONSTER BEVERAGE: District Court Granted Final Approval of Deal MORGAN STANLEY: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of "Stratte-McClure" MORGAN STANLEY: July 2 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement MORGAN STANLEY: Plaintiffs' Time to Pursue Appeal Expired MORGAN STANLEY: Deal in Pass-Through Certs. Case Has Final Okay MORGAN STANLEY: IndyMac Case Settlement Has Final Approval MORGAN STANLEY: Parties Agreed to Settle Allstate Insurance Case MORTGAGE GUARANTY: Faces "Arencibia" Class Suit in M.D. Florida NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Seeks Dismissal of Academic Scandal Suit NEW JERSEY: Did Not Violate Medicaid Law, Supreme Court Rules NEXTEL COMMS: 2nd Cir. Addresses Punitive Damages Questions NOVA BENEFIT: Court Enters Show Cause Order in "Dix" Case NY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation OCEAN DETAILING: "Lovinsky" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages OCWEN LOAN: Has Until May 15 to Respond to "Nemerovsky" Suit OLD REPUBLIC: Class Not Certified in 2 Class Action Lawsuits ONE ABINGDON: "Lazo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Judge Dismisses Credit Check Class Action PF CHANG'S: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action in Illinois POPULAR INC: "Valle" Class Action Has Been Stayed Pending Ruling POPULAR INC: Quiles Case Wins Conditional Certification POPULAR INC: Motion to Transfer Fernandez Case Remains Pending POPULAR INC: Settlement Terms Being Negotiated in Alvarez Case POPULAR INC: Plaintiffs in "Valle" Filed Notice of Appeal POPULAR INC: Settled Suit by 2 Former Assistant Branch Managers PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Astengo" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Lynch" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach RADIAN GROUP: "White" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Decision RADIAN GROUP: "Menichino" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Ruling RADIAN GROUP: "Manners" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Decision RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Must Face Glass-Tainted Pill Class Action ROBERT'S ASPHALT: "Tew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ROMANTIX INC: Faces "Kolias" Suit for Sending Spam Text Messages RPM DINING: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SAN FRANCISCO: Management Conference in Class Suit on July 16 SANDISK CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action SEADRILL LTD: May 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Gaab" Suit in S.D. California SOTHEBY'S: Defending Appeal in "Graham" Class Action SOTHEBY'S: Court Entered Stipulation in St. Louis Action STANFORD INT'L: US Government Not Liable to Ponzi Scheme Victims STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Is Proceeding in Junk Fax Lawsuit STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SUNEDISON INC: Updates on Jerry Jones Case TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Restraints Trade of ACTOS Meds, Suit Says TCP INTERNATIONAL: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over 2014 IPO TELOMERASE ACTIVATION: Class Cert. Bid Denial in Egan Case Upheld TEXAS BRINE: Sinkhole Settlement Recipients Raise Concerns TOLEDO, OH: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over 2006 Flooding TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Panes" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces White Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports TYSON FOODS: Class Action Obtains Preliminary Court Approval UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Suit vs. Social Security Admin. VAN'S INT'L: "Frei" Suit Transferred From Colorado to California VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Faces "Cummins" Class Action Lawsuit WAFFLE & WOLF: "Tococh" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Owens" Suit Over Product Misbranding YOUKU TUDOU: May 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set * Accounting Fraud Class Actions Up 47% in 2014, Cornerstone Says * Investors Warned About Publicly Traded Marijuana Companies * Labor Depreciation Class Actions Spread Across US * Oklahoma Oil Cos. Sued Over Increased Earthquake Activity ********* ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Product Liability Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed a product liability complaint related to Reglan(R)/Metoclopramide, Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. "Halsey Drug Company, as predecessor to us, has been named along with numerous other companies as a defendant in cases filed in three separate state coordinated litigations pending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California, respectively captioned In re: Reglan(R)/Metoclopramide Mass Tort Litigation, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, January Term, 2010, No. 01997; In re: Reglan Litigation, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Case No. 289, Master Docket No. ATL-L-3865-10; and Reglan/Metoclopramide Cases, Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4631, Superior Court No.: CJC-10-004631," the Company said. In addition, Acura was served with a similar complaint by two individual plaintiffs in Nebraska federal court, which plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed in December 2014. "In this product liability litigation against numerous pharmaceutical product manufacturers and distributors, including us, plaintiffs claim injuries from their use of the Reglan brand of metoclopramide and generic metoclopramide." "In the Pennsylvania action, over 200 lawsuits have been filed against us and Halsey Drug Company alleging that plaintiffs developed neurological disorders as a result of their use of the Reglan brand and/or generic metoclopramide. In the New Jersey action, plaintiffs filed approximately 150 lawsuits against us, but served less than 50 individual lawsuits upon us. In the California action, there are 89 pending cases against us, with more than 445 individual plaintiffs. "In the lawsuits filed to date, plaintiffs have not confirmed they ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. We discontinued manufacture and distribution of generic metoclopramide more than 18 years ago. In addition, we believe the June 23, 2011 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in PLIVA v. Mensing ("Mensing decision") holding that state tort law failure to warn claims against generic drug companies are pre-empted by the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments and federal drug regulations will assist us in favorably resolving these cases. We have consistently maintained the position that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions. "In New Jersey, Generic Defendants, including Acura, filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision, which the Court granted with a limited exception. As of September 2012, the New Jersey trial court dismissed Acura with prejudice. In Pennsylvania, and California, Generic Defendants, including Acura, also filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision. "In Pennsylvania, on November 18, 2011, the trial court denied Generic Defendants' dispositive preemption motions. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held in a July 29, 2013 decision that federal preemption applied, but that Mensing did not completely bar all claims and refused to dismiss these cases. On September 17, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear a further appeal. On December 16, 2014, Generic Defendants filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting that the United States Supreme Court agree to hear a further appeal on the grounds that federal preemption under Mensing should completely bar all of these claims. All trial court proceedings have been stayed pending resolution of this lengthy appeal process. To the extent that plaintiffs intend to pursue their claims in the future, if the appeal is denied, Acura nonetheless remains optimistic that most, if not all, of these Philadelphia cases will eventually be dismissed against us based upon the favorable aspects of the Superior Court's narrow preemption ruling and lack of product identification, although there can be no assurance in this regard. Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by our insurance carrier. "In California, the trial court entered a May 25, 2012 Order denying Generic Defendants' dispositive preemption motions. The Generic Defendants' appeals from this order were denied by the California appellate courts. Therefore, subject to further developments, plaintiffs may be permitted to proceed with these lawsuits including state law claims based on (1) failing to communicate warnings to physicians through "Dear Doctor" letters; and (2) failure to update labeling to adopt brand labeling changes. The California trial court also has acknowledged the preemptive effect of Mensing so that any claim "that would render the generic defendants in violation of federal law if they are found responsible under a state law cause of action, would not be permissible." To date, however, none of these plaintiffs have confirmed they ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. Therefore, we expect the number of plaintiffs with possible claims to be reduced voluntarily or by motion practice. Action will be taken in an effort to dismiss Acura from these cases, although there can be no assurance in this regard. Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by our insurance carrier. "As any potential loss is neither probable nor estimable, we have not accrued for any potential loss related to these matters as of December 31, 2014 and we are presently unable to determine if any potential loss would be covered by our insurance carrier." AGRESERVES INC: Deadline to File Responsive Pleading on May 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston signed on April 23, 2015, a stipulation and order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ZJNMwnfrom Leagle.com, extending the time for defendant to file responsive pleading in the case captioned LEONEL ROJAS RIVERA, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AGRESERVES, INC. dba SOUTH VALLEY FARMS; and SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, NO. 1:15-CV-00613-AWI-JLT, (E.D. Cal.). The Defendants' deadline to file responsive pleadings was last April 27, 2015. On April 21, 2015, the parties met and conferred in compliance with Eastern District of California Local Rule 144 regarding Defendants' intent to file respective Motions to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. During the meet and confer process, the parties could not agree on whether Plaintiff would file a first amended complaint in federal court. To allow Plaintiff ample time to decide whether to file an amended complaint in the Eastern District of California in lieu of Defendants filing their respective Motions to Dismiss the Complaint, Defendants must have an extension to respond to the initial Complaint while Plaintiff weighs his options. Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation: (1) Defendant AgReserves's date to answer or otherwise respond to the initial Complaint on file is extended to May 10, 2015. (2) Defendant Almond Company's date to answer or otherwise respond to the initial Complaint on file is extended to May 10, 2015. (3) If Plaintiff so chooses, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before May 1, 2015. If the amended complaint is filed, Defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint will be in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3) -- namely, 14 days after service of the amended complaint. Richard D. Marca -- Richard.Marca@greshamsavage.com -- Jamie Wrage -- Jamie.Wrage@greshamsavage.com -- Jeff T. Olsen -- Jeff.Olsen@greshamsavage.com -- GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation, Riverside, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, AGRESERVES, INC. dba SOUTH VALLEY FARMS and SOUTH VALLEY ALMOND COMPANY, LLC KARASIK LAW FIRM, Gregory N. Karasik -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- Attorneys for Plaintiff, LEONEL ROJAS RIVERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated AIR CANADA: Passengers Mull Class Action Over Crash Landing Trauma ------------------------------------------------------------------ CTV News reports that passengers of the crashed Air Canada Flight AC624 are in the process of filing a class-action lawsuit, a Nova Scotia law firm confirmed. MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law say they have consulted with passengers on a lawsuit which would likely target Air Canada, the Halifax Stanfield International Airport, and Nav Canada, which owns and operates Canada's civil air navigation system. The lawsuit would be filed with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, seeking damages for any physical and psychological trauma suffered during the crash landing. Vancouver aviation lawyer J.J. Camp told CTV News Channel on March 31 that airlines generally don't have a cap on the amount a passenger can receive in a liability claim, adding there are potential psychological damages that can arise after the crash that could be taken into consideration. "That's not the end of the story," Mr. Camp said. "The post- traumatic stress symptoms and the PTSD fallout can be much, much more severe than the physical injuries." Mr. Camp said he believes the passengers have a case, adding lawyers will need to determine the condition of the airplane and the state of the pilots at the time of the crash, as well as the effectiveness of the airline, Nav Canada and the airport. "(Nav Canada) has an obligation to keep the pilots fully informed of on-ground weather conditions that prevailed at the time of the crash landing," he said. "Looking at the Halifax International Airport Authority, and whether they were up to snuff with their instruments that guided the aircraft in, and whether they had proper lighting, and whether they were performing according to proper standards." Following the crash, which occurred early Sunday morning, passengers evacuated the plane and huddled on the dark, snowy Halifax airport runway. Passenger Steve Dijkema, who began capturing the scene on video moments after climbing out of the plane, told CTV News nearly half the passengers he saw were "bleeding from their face, some profusely." Mr. Dijkema's footage shows some passengers shouting, while others are seen shivering, wearing little more than a T-shirt. One man presses an airplane pillow against his bleeding face. Mr. Dijkema's wife Sarah remembers passengers trying to get a safe distance from the crashed aircraft. "Once we got off, I remember Steve just grabbing me by the shirt and like hauling me away, like run as far away from the plane as you can get," she said. Passengers grouped together for warmth as they waited for help to arrive. Mr. Dijkema himself was stuck standing on the tarmac without shoes. After emergency crews arrived, he was led off the cold ground into a firetruck, where he continued to film. "I was left in the firetruck for a while by myself while they were trying to figure out what to do," he said. While emergency crews arrived immediately, passengers were still forced to wait up to 50 minutes on the runway before being shuttled away. Halifax International Airport Authority spokesperson Peter Spurway said the process for such an operation was more complicated than it appeared. "The airfield is a secure area, people driving vehicles there need proper certification, proper licensing to do that," Mr. Spurway said. "And it's (12:45 a.m.) on a Sunday morning, so there are circumstances that combine to prevent a quicker response to that." Mr. Spurway called the emergency crew response "textbook," but said the airport's process for picking up passengers in emergency situations could be improved. "We will work hard to develop protocols to shorten that time should such a situation, such an extraordinary circumstance, present itself again," Spurway told CTV News. "I'm confident that we can do better than that." According to CBC News, meanwhile, lawyer Ray Wagner of Wagners Serious Injury Law Firm confirmed on March 30 that he was also meeting with a passenger from the flight on March 31 and he has been in contact with a second passenger. ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Class Action Parties Executed Stipulation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albemarle Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to the class action have executed a final Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation"), which will be submitted to the Superior Court of New Jersey for approval. On January 12, 2015, the Company completed the previously announced acquisition (the "Merger") of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. ("Rockwood") pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). On July 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County ("Superior Court of New Jersey") relating to the Merger. On July 24, 2014, an additional putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey relating to the Merger. Both suits named the same plaintiff but were filed by different law firms. On August 1, 2014 and August 12, 2014, three additional putative class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") relating to the Merger. The lawsuits filed in New Jersey, Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings Inc., et al. ("Thwaites I"), Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Thwaites II"), and the lawsuits filed in Delaware, Rudman Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., Riley v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., and North Miami Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., each named Rockwood, its former directors, and Albemarle as defendants. Thwaites II and the cases filed in Delaware also named Albemarle Holdings Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Albemarle, as a defendant. The lawsuits, which contain substantially similar allegations, included allegations that Rockwood's former board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to ensure that Rockwood shareholders would receive the maximum value for their shares, failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and putting their own interests ahead of those of Rockwood shareholders. Rockwood and Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits sought a variety of equitable relief, including enjoining the former Rockwood board of directors from proceeding with the proposed Merger unless they acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value and rescission of the Merger to the extent implemented, in addition to damages arising from the defendants' alleged breaches and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites I filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to all defendants. On August 27, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the three Delaware cases consolidated and appointed co-lead counsel. The court also ordered that no response to the complaints would be due until after plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On September 19, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites II filed an amended complaint which included allegations that the registration statement failed to disclose material information. Plaintiffs in Thwaites II and in the Delaware consolidated action subsequently coordinated their litigation efforts, and the Delaware consolidated action was stayed pending the outcome of the Thwaites II litigation. In Thwaites II, the parties (including the Delaware plaintiffs) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on November 6, 2014, provisionally settling all claims in the pending actions and declaring the parties' intent to submit a settlement agreement for the court's approval within 90 days. On December 2, 2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the amended complaint in Thwaites II until February 4, 2015. The parties executed a final Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation") on February 4, 2015, which will be submitted to the Superior Court of New Jersey for approval. In addition to extinguishing the current claims, the Stipulation contemplates broad releases of any and all actual and potential claims, whether known or unknown, by any member of the putative shareholder class against the defendants relating to or arising out of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the registration statement. Upon final approval of the settlement by the Superior Court of New Jersey, plaintiffs in the Delaware actions will move to dismiss the pending consolidated action with prejudice, thereby terminating the litigation. ALTERRA EXCESS: June 26 Status Conference in World Fuel Suit Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr., issued on April 22, 2015, an order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/1oInqefrom Leagle.com, granting a motion to stay discovery and setting status conference in World Fuel Services Corporation; World Fuel Services, Inc.; World Fuel Services Canada, Inc.; Western Petroleum Company; Dakota Petroleum Transport Solutions, LLC; Petroleum Transport Solutions, LLC; DPTS Marketing, LLC; Dakota Plains Marketing, LLC; and Dakota Plains Transloading, LLC; Plaintiffs, v. Alterra Excess & Surplus Insurance Company n/k/a Markel Corporation, Defendant, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-054, (D. N.D.). Plaintiffs have been sued in a number of actions arising out of the tragic derailment of a train operated by the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway that occurred in Lac-M‚gantic, Quebec. The derailment resulted in the deaths of more than 40 persons and caused substantial property and environmental damage. The actions in which plaintiffs have been named include: (1) a class action in Quebec alleging various bodily injury and property damages claims; (2) a number of wrongful death claims filed in Illinois, removed to the federal district court, and transferred to the federal district court in Maine; (3) the railroad's bankruptcy proceedings in the District of Maine and Canada; and (4) a Canadian administrative environmental proceeding. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action on May 23, 2014, seeking a declaration of coverage under an excess liability policy issued by defendant. Although the complaint was filed in 2014, service was delayed with the consent of defendant for a period of time. When the parties could not agree to further extensions for service of the complaint, the complaint was served and defendant filed its answer and counterclaim on January 13, 2015. Defendant seeks in its counterclaim a declaration that it owes no obligation to indemnify plaintiffs and asserts a number of defenses to coverage. Plaintiffs have sought a stay of all discovery for a period of 120 days to see if global settlement discussions led by representatives of the railroad's bankruptcy estates will bear fruit. Plaintiffs claim that a global resolution may provide greater clarity with respect to any underlying liabilities of plaintiffs and potentially narrow the issues to be resolved in this case, which, in turn, could lessen the amount of discovery required. Defendant opposed the motion. After careful review, the Court concluded that plaintiffs have shown good cause for deferring discovery and defendant has failed to demonstrate that it will be prejudiced, much less unfairly. The court also concluded that deferring discovery only on the "expected or intended" defense is not an answer because the substantial amount of discovery that would proceed defeats the purpose for deferring discovery in the first instance. "[P]laintiffs' motion is granted and all discovery will be stayed pending further order of the court," ruled Judge Miller. "The court will hold a telephonic status conference on June 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. CDT to discuss: (1) the status of the underlying litigation; (2) whether the stay of discovery should be lifted or continued; (3) the setting of new pretrial deadlines and a new trial date, if necessary; and (4) whether an early ADR effort would be beneficial. AMERICAN CAPITAL: Court Issued Show Cause Order ----------------------------------------------- LYLE BREHM, on behalf of Willard F. Brehm, Gladys M. Brehm, the Willard F. Brehm Revocable Trust and the Gladys M. Brehm Revocable Trust, REX WELDON, on behalf of Nancy Weldon, Robert Clark Weldon and the Robert Clark Weldon and Nancy Weldon Trust, JILL SCHUNEMAN, on behalf of herself and the Jill Schuneman Living Trust, and DAVID BUCKLEY, on behalf of himself, the Robert L. McKissick Irrevocable Trust and the Brenda L. Buckley Revocable Trust, collectively on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REBECCA ENGLE, BRIAN SCHUSTER, ENGLE & SCHUSTER FINANCIAL, INC.; AMERICAN CAPITAL CORPORATION; ROYAL PALM CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; GERALD PARKER, LIANA DOBARGANES HARRINGTON, in her capacity as sole heir or putative personal representative of the Estate of Patrick Harrington, deceased; Defendants, NO. 8:07CV254, (D. Neb.) is before the court after a review of the court file and pursuant to NECivR 41.2, which states in pertinent part: "At any time, a case not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence may be dismissed for lack of prosecution." Further, on July 29, 2014, the court entered an order requiring the plaintiffs to file a status report or a motion for final approval of class action settlement within 180 days of the order. The plaintiffs have not filed any documents since the order. In an order entered April 10, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1zsVHCmfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken ordered that the plaintiffs had until the close of business on April 24, 2015, to comply with the court's July 29, 2014, Order or show cause why this case should not be dismissed as against the defendants for failure to prosecute. AMERICAN REALTY: Court Tosses Bid to Remand Wunsch Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge J. Frederick Motz entered a memorandum on April 14, 2015, in the case GARY WUNSCH v. AMERICAN REALTY CAPITAL PROPERTIES, ET AL., CIVIL NO. JFM-14-4007, (D. Md.) denying plaintiff's motion to remand and transferring this action to the Southern District of New York, where it can be consolidated with "the seven suits that are presently pending there." "I agree with the decision in Knox v. Agria Corp., 613 F.Supp.2d 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) rather than the opinion of my friend and colleague Judge Goodwin in Niitsoo v. Alpha Natural Res., Inc., 902 F.Supp.2d 797 (S.D.W.Va. 2012). I do not believe that the Supreme Court's opinion in Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006) is material because this case involves a class action based upon federal law. Thus, it is a "covered class action" under 15 U.S.C. [Section]77p(b). Section 77p(c) is not relevant here because the asserted claims do not arise under state law," Judge Motz concluded. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/rvhNxqfrom Leagle.com. Gary Wunsch, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick C Smith -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laurie B Goon -- lbgoon@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP. ANTHEM LIFE: Removes "Smilow" Class Suit to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Y. Michael Smilow, and Jessica Katz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anthem Life & Disability Insurance Company, Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., and Empire Health Choice HMO, Inc., Case No. 503895/2015, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02380-SLT-SMG to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to control access to the consumers' Personal Health Information and Personally Identifiable Information in a manner consistent with the HIPAA regulations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq. Joshua M. Rubin, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com jrubin@weisslawllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Lisa Fried, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3000 Facsimile: (212) 918-3100 E-mail: lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com AOL INC: May 29 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Derby" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ronald M. Whyte signed on April 16, 2015, a stipulation and order extending the briefing schedule on defendant's motion to dismiss and to reschedule motion hearing in the case captioned NICHOLAS DERBY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. AOL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, CIVIL CASE NO. 5:15-CV-00452- RMW, (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on February 2, 2015. On April 3, 2015, the Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss. The hearing on Defendant's Motion is currently set for May 8, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion is currently due on April 17, 2015, and Defendant's reply brief is currently due on April 24, 2015. The Parties agreed that, in light of the amount of time necessary to thoroughly address the issues presented in Defendant's Motion, and in light of the schedules of counsel, good cause exists to continue the hearing on Defendant's Motion and good cause exists for an extension of time for Plaintiff to properly respond to Defendant's Motion and for Defendant to properly reply. Consequently, the parties agreed to: (i) extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file his response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by 21 days to May 8, 2015; (ii) extend the deadline for Defendant to file its reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss by seven days to May 22, 2015; and (iii) rescheduling the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss to May 29, 2015, or any date thereafter in accordance with the Court's calendar. A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/3Q0E0Pfrom Leagle.com. Simon J. Frankel -- sfrankel@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, San Francisco, CA. Eric C. Bosset -- ebosset@cov.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, D.C. Attorneys for Defendant AOL, INC. David C. Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Suzanne Havens Beckman -- shavens@parisihavens.com -- PARISI & HAVENS LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff NICHOLAS DERBY. ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: No Ruling Yet on Case Dismissal Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the District Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss a class action. The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the District Court), naming us and certain of our officers as defendants. The lawsuits allege that we made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in our public disclosures during the period from December 12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30, 2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of our officers, present and former directors and certain underwriters made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with our January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10, 2014, the District Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss. The court has not yet ruled on the motion." AT&T SERVICES: Faces "Meador" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Meador and Christine Tokarski, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01005 (M.D. Fla., April 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. AT&T Services is an American multinational telecommunications corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Removes "Voronov" Suit to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Voronov, et al. v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc., Case No. BER-L-001045-15, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County-Law Division, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02740-JLL-JAD to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts fraud-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron Louis Peskin, Esq. FERRARA LAW GROUP, P.C. 224 W. State St. Trenton, NJ 08608 Telephone: (609) 375-2192 Facsimile: (609) 228-5451 E-mail: aaron@ferraralawgp.com The Defendant is represented by: Ronald A. Giller, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-2500 Facsimile: (973) 377-1911 E-mail: rgiller@gordonrees.com BAYER: Class Seeks Riceland Gross Recovery in Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Andrew D. Carpenter, Esq. -- acarpenter@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in a very meta turn, Riceland Foods, Inc. found itself on the receiving end of a class action composed of class action firms and plaintiffs from the GMO Rice MDL overseen by Judge Catherine D. Perry of the USDC of the Eastern District of Missouri. Riceland had been a co- defendant along with defendant Bayer in that litigation and had then cross-claimed Bayer and settled for $92 million. Following the District Court's orders awarding common benefit expenses and fees, three law firms that had incurred legal fees and expenses while performing class benefit work sought to certify a class representing not only other law firms but also clients who had paid for common benefit services and expenses. The proposed class brought claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against Riceland on the basis that Riceland had benefitted from the putative class's common benefit work in obtaining a judgment against Bayer, and sought ten per-cent of Riceland's gross recovery against Bayer. The District Court certified a 23(b) class in a March 19 Memorandum and Order. Before delving into the 23(b) requirements, the District Court performed a limited choice of law analysis to determine which state's laws would govern the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims of the multi-state putative class. Using Missouri's "Significant Relationship Test," the District Court found that Missouri had the most significant relationship to the unjust enrichment claim and the quantum meruit claim, primarily because the claims arose from an MDL venued in Missouri. Other important contacts, such as where a benefit was conferred or received, or the location of the parties, were dismissed out of hand as either of "little significance" or "too taxing" to determine individually. This begs the question of why such contacts would be disregarded rather than considered as creating individualized choice of law issues potentially compromising the superiority or manageability of a (b)(3) class, as well as the wisdom of basing choice of law considerations of happenstance as variable as the predilection of the JPML. The District Court also concluded that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual ones, and rejected Riceland's assertion that each plaintiff must first identify each attorney that created each piece of work product utilized by Riceland in its cross-claim against Bayer and then identify which particular class member paid for each piece of work in order to determine at whose expense Riceland was unjustly enriched or which party conferred a benefit on Riceland. The District Court specifically distinguished the facts of this case from prior cases denying the certification of such claims on the basis that because the putative class members undertook to "pool their resources" in the MDL as part of a "collective effort," they need not show which client or counsel paid for specific items, only that the class jointly incurred expenses to provide a benefit on Riceland. This is an interesting distinction, and it will be instructive to see if the members of the class agree that they all jointly agreed to pool their efforts regardless of which client or counsel undertook those efforts when it comes time to divide the common benefit pie amongst them. BLOOMINGDALES INC: Faces "Ashkenazi" Class Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Ashkenazi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bloomingdales, Inc. v. John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15- cv-02705-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., April 16, 2015) is brought under the federal Communications Act of 1934. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com BROOKSAMERICA MORTGAGE: Final Judgment Entered in "Peel" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court having granted final approval of the class action settlement between Class Representatives Timothy R. Peel and Cheryl G. Peel ("Class Representatives"), on behalf of themselves and a class of persons, and Defendants Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. ("WMMSC") and WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. ("WAAC"), District Judge Josephine L. Staton issued on April 21, 2015, a judgment, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/OzomgPfrom Leagle.com, holding, among other things, that: 1. All claims of the Class Representatives and the Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement and as certified in this Court's Order Preliminarily Approving Amended Class Action Settlement, Approving Class Notice Plan and Setting Final Approval Hearing dated November 13, 2014, against WMMSC and WAAC are dismissed with prejudice; 2. All members of the Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement and as certified in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, (except those who are Successful Opt-Outs), and Gonzalo and Guadalupe Parra, and Wilfredo A. Golez are permanently enjoined and barred from commencing or prosecuting any action asserting any matter within the scope of the Release set forth in the Amended Settlement Agreement, either directly, representatively, derivatively, or in any other capacity, whether by a complaint, counterclaim, defense, or otherwise, in any local, state, or federal court, or in any agency or other authority or forum wherever located. The case is TIMOTHY R. PEEL AND CHERYL G. PEEL, RUSS BEBOUT, MICHAEL SANFORD AND MARILYN SANFORD and DESIREE MCILRATH on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BROOKSAMERICA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a California Corporation; WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., formerly sued as DOE 1; WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP., formerly sued as DOE 2; RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC, formerly sued as DOE 3; and DOES 4 through 200 inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. SACV 11-00079-JLS (RNBX), (C.D. Cal.). C&R DOWNHOLE: Faces "Blackford" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Blackford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C&R Downhole Drilling, LLC, Case No. 2:15- cv-00556-NBF (W.D. Pa., April 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. C&R Downhole Drilling, LLC is an oilfield service company offering a wide ride range of services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com CALIFORNIA: "Dupree" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an order on April 9, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1bFK9jXfrom Leagle.com, denying an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissing without prejudice the action captioned RICHARD JOSE DUPREE, JR. et al., Plaintiffs, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00512- AWI-SAB(PC), (E.D. Cal.). Mr. Dupree is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The Plaintiff stated that this is a class action on behalf of himself and Luciano Galindo Lopez. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations based upon his prosecution, trial, and conviction. The Plaintiff also alleges that he is being falsely imprisoned and harmed by satellites that are being utilized to steal his intellectual property. According to Judge Ishii, a plaintiff, who is not an attorney, may not represent anyone but himself in court. The Plaintiff also alleges no facts supporting a finding that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Hence, he is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, Judge Ishii concluded. The action is dismissed, without prejudice, to refiling with the submission of the $400.00 filing fee in full. The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to close this action. Richard Jose Dupree, Jr, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Luciano Galindo Lopez, Plaintiff, Pro Se. CAPITAL ONE: Settles Car Repo Class Action for $4.4 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Y. Peter Kang and Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, report that Capital One NA has agreed to pay $4.4 million to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that borrowers who had vehicles repossessed and sold at auction were given deficient notices regarding the sales in violation of Maryland law, according to documents filed in Maryland federal court on March 30. Under terms of the proposed settlement, Capital One will waive all outstanding balances owed by class members and will dismiss any pending lawsuits based on those outstanding balances. In addition, Capital One agreed to tell the major credit reporting agencies the borrowers paid their debts in full. "The proposed classwide settlement in this case is believed by class counsel to be a favorable and reasonable settlement based upon the claims and upon the defenses available to Capital One," the plaintiff wrote in a brief supporting preliminary approval of the settlement. "Named plaintiff's counsel respectfully submits that the settlement is favorable for the plaintiff class and most certainly in 'the range of possible approval.'" The deal will resolve a lawsuit brought by Dorothy Gales in 2013 on behalf of about 7,400 customers alleging that Capital One violated Maryland's Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions, or CLEC, when it told borrowers that their cars would be sold at public auction when they were actually sold at private sales. Capital One also failed to provide details regarding winning bids and failed to provide a statement about the condition of the vehicle at the time of the sale, Gales alleges. "Capital One's use of deficient form presale and post-sale notices which omit material information required by Maryland law makes this case particularly suitable for resolution through a class action lawsuit," according to the first amended complaint. Last year, Capital One settled a proposed class action brought on behalf of around 2,200 Maryland car buyers whose financing included so-called "GAP agreements" that purportedly required Capital One to scratch the remaining loan balance in the event the car was totaled and insurance failed to cover the amount outstanding on the loan. In that case, Capital One agreed to pay $3 million to resolve the proposed class action over "phony" debt cancellation agreements included in car loans that allegedly ran afoul of Maryland's CLEC law. Ms. Gales is represented by Cory L. Zajdel of Z Law LLC. Capital One is represented by Jessica Erin Morrison, Bryan A. Fratkin and Phillip C. Chang of McGuireWoods LLP. The case is Dorothy Gales v. Capital One NA, case number 8:13-cv- 01624, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. CARBONITE INC: Fails to Backup Consumers Computer Data, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sherry Orson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Carbonite, Inc., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-03097 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's wrongful business practice of failing to disclose to consumers that its computer backup services and software fails to back up their consumers' computer data thereby resulting in consumers' loss of computer data and payment for nonfunctional services. Carbonite, Inc. is in the business of providing online computer backup service for documents, electronic mail, music, photos and the like to more than 1.5 million customers, including 50,000 small business Customers nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. David L. Weisberg, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com david@kristensenlaw.com CENTURY ALUMINUM: Retiree Medical Benefits Case Trial Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Century Aluminum Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case in chief related to Ravenswood Retiree Medical Benefits changes is currently proceeding in the trial court. In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. ("CAWV") filed a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USWA"), the USWA's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits. Later in November 2009, the USWA and representatives of a retiree class filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to the foregoing. These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prevent the Company from implementing any modifications to the retiree medical benefits while these lawsuits are pending, which was dismissed by the trial court, and affirmed upon appeal. CAWV has filed a motion for summary judgment of these actions. The case in chief is currently proceeding in the trial court, subject to the court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment. CHAPEI LLC: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Weigang Wang and Hailong Yu, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Chapei LLC d/b/a Wok Empire, Cha Lee Lo, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-02950-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., April 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Chapei LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company with a principal place of business at 400 Foothill Road, Bridgewater, New Jersey. Chapei owns and operates a group of Asian restaurants located in various ShopRite supermarkets in New Jersey, including those located at 1 South Davenport St., Somerville, New Jersey, 318 Lloyd Road, Matawan, New Jersey; and Route 35 & Harmony Road, Middletown, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Masters" Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the action, Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al. On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay overtime, to permit required rest breaks, and to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims. (Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278). The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported class members. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. Based on the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Garcia" Action ----------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the action, Garcia v. v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, et al. On January 14, 2015, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit required meal and rest breaks, and to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims. (Garcia v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, et al; Case No 37-2015-00001408). The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported class members. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. Based on the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. CLEAN HARBORS: Fairness Hearing Anticipated to Occur in May 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the Fee Class Action must be approved by the court in a fairness hearing, which is anticipated to occur in May 2015. In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similar lawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California and Missouri. On January 15, 2015, the Company reached a tentative settlement of the pending class action lawsuits, which were broadened to include similar claims on behalf of customers in Florida, West Virginia and Arkansas. The settlement must be approved by the court in a fairness hearing, which is anticipated to occur in May 2015. The exact settlement cost is not yet determinable, but it is not expected to be material. CLEAN HARBORS: 17 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, 17 product liability claims were settled or dismissed. Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are currently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout the United States, including approximately 59 proceedings (excluding cases which have been settled but not formally dismissed) as of December 31, 2014, wherein persons claim personal injury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment or cleaning products. These proceedings typically involve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that Safety- Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove the contaminants that become entrained in the solvent during their use. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen failed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks, including an historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace amounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene. Safety- Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide coverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured retentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for punitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law or excluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these claims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and intends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of its products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of December 31, 2014. From January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, 17 product liability claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur any expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional lawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurance coverage may not be available. CRST VAN: 9th Cir. Reverses Dist. Court Ruling in "Cole" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- In JAMES COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRST VAN EXPEDITED, INC., an Iowa Corporation, FKA CRST, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13- 55507, James Cole appealed a district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings, dismissing his class action claim against CRST Van Expedited, Inc. alleging violations of California's meal and rest break laws, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7, 512, and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, Section 11090. Cole argued that the district court erred in dismissing his meal and rest break claim on the basis that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempts California's meal and rest break laws. "We recently held in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637, 647-50 (9th Cir. 2014), that California's meal and rest break laws are not "related to" prices, routes or services and therefore are not preempted by the FAAAA. In light of our holding in Dilts, the district court erred by granting CSRT's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of FAAAA preemption. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with Dilts," ruled the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in an opinion entered April 14, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/riw5icfrom Leagle.com. D'ARCY BUICK: Faces "Salcedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Salcedo, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. D'arcy Buick GMC, Inc., a/k/a D'arcy Olds VW GMC Trucks, Case No. 1:15-cv-03677 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 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 an automotive dealership in the Chicago. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com DIRECTV: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing Tactics ------------------------------------------------------------ Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that litigation is popping up across the country against DirecTV. Earlier in March, the Federal Trade Commission got in on the action, lodging a complaint for deceptive marketing tactics. Then in late March, a lawsuit seeking class action status and $5 million in damages was filed in federal court in Connecticut accusing DirecTV of misleading billing. "By unfairly and deceptively hiding the true price of DirecTV's goods and services to Connecticut residents, DirecTV has taken steps to unfairly trick Connecticut customers into selecting DirecTV services so that they become trapped into a deceptive and onerous long-term contract," said the complaint filed by John Horvack Jr. -- jhorvack@carmodylaw.com -- David Hardy -- dhardy@carmodylaw.com -- and John Cordani Jr. -- jlcordani@carmodylaw.com -- of Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey in New Haven. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut was brought by Jonathan Ferrie, a Prospect resident who signed up for DirecTV in July 2013. Mr. Ferrie was quoted a price that he believed would be his monthly bill. He was even provided a sample bill that states: "This amount reflects the total package and programming costs you can expect to see on your first month's bill statement." However, when he got his bill, it was higher than he anticipated. According to the complaint, Mr. Ferrie was forced to pay an additional tax he did not expect that Connecticut charges DirecTV for doing business in the state. The line item on his bill was called "a gross earnings tax reimbursement." The tax was typically around $5 or 5 percent of his monthly bill. The lawsuit said Mr. Ferrie was "tricked into believing that the surcharge was an additional tax imposed by the state of Connecticut." The item is listed under the heading "taxes" and right underneath the item "sales tax." "In so doing, DirecTV intends to cause Connecticut customers to wrongly believe that the State of Connecticut has imposed the surcharge upon them (like the sales tax), when in fact DirecTV has imposed the surcharge upon them," reads the complaint. The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all Connecticut residents who purchased satellite television from DirecTV since March 19, 2012, to the present. It is expected to cover thousands of Connecticut consumers who have done business with DirecTV. The lawsuit also points out that DirecTV does not reveal the tax to consumers until after they have entered long-term contracts and invested substantial time and effort into the installation of DirecTV's equipment. The lawsuit said breaking the contract requires "onerous cancellation charges." The cancellation charges are part of the allegations made by the FTC in its recently filed complaint. The FTC claims that DirecTV deceptively advertises its discounted 12-month programming package because it fails to clearly disclose that the package requires a two-year contract. Additionally, the FTC says the nation's largest satellite provider does not clearly disclose that the cost of the package will increase by up to $45 more per month in the second year, and that early cancellation fees of up to $480 apply if consumers cancel the package before the end of the two-year period. DirecTV also fails to disclose that its offer of free premium channels for three months is in fact a continuity plan that requires consumers to proactively cancel to avoid automatic charges on their credit or debit cards after the three months are up, the FTC alleges. "DirecTV misled consumers about the cost of its satellite television services and cancellation fees," said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez in a statement. "DirecTV sought to lock customers into longer and more expensive contracts and premium packages that were not adequately disclosed. It's a bedrock principle that the key terms of an offer to a consumer must be clear and conspicuous, not hidden in fine print." In filing its complaint, the FTC is seeking a court order that permanently bars DirecTV from engaging in the allegedly illegal conduct, as well as a monetary judgment that could be used to provide refunds to affected consumers. Based in El Segundo, California, with more than 20 million subscribers across the country, DirecTV typically requires subscribers to agree to a 24-month contract that includes a programming package, satellite dish, other necessary equipment, and installation and support services. A spokesman for the company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. An attorney has not yet filed an appearance in the Connecticut lawsuit on behalf of DirecTV. DirecTV was also in the when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review an appellate court ruling out of California. The plaintiffs, who allege that DirecTV's cancellation fees violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, were allowed to proceed with the case despite clauses in their contracts with DirecTV that required them to arbitrate disputes individually. DirecTV's petition asserted that the California decision contradicted the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. In Concepcion, the justices held that AT&T could enforce mandatory arbitration clauses in its customer agreements, concluding that the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empted a California law cracking down on class action waivers. Anthony Minchella, of Minchella & Associates in Middlebury, specializes in defending unfair trade practices cases. Mr. Minchella said he would not be surprised to see DirecTV make a similar argument in Connecticut as it will make to the U.S. Supreme Court "if its contract has an arbitration clause and a class action waiver, which I believe in the Second Circuit, are enforceable." Mr. Minchella believes the Connecticut plaintiffs do make an interesting case. "I think the plaintiff's complaint has merit on its face, and would seem to be fit for a class action," said Mr. Minchella. "However, DirecTV may argue that there is nothing wrong with passing along a cost of doing business to a customer and simply not calling it the right name does not harm consumers. I'd like to know whether or not the lead plaintiff seriously would not have signed up with DirecTV had the additional tax been disclosed as a tax not on him, but on DirecTV." DR WELL: Faces "Kirk" Suit in Pa. Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Kirk, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DR Well Site Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-00116-BR (W.D. Pa., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. DR Well Site Services, LLC is a Pennsylvania company offering a wide ride range of services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com EASY ACCESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer' Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Easy Access Capital LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-00664 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls using an automatic telephone dialing system. Easy Access Capital LLC is in the business of offering consumers and business owners' business loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com EOG RESOURCES: Faces "Boudreaux" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin J. Boudreaux, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EOG Resources, Inc. f/k/a Enron Oil And Gas Company, Case No. 4:15-cv-01099 (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. EOG Resources, Inc. is a Delaware oil and gas company with principal place of business located at 1111 Bagby Street, Sky Lobby 2, Houston, Texas 77002. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq. BARON BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave, Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75214 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com FEDERAL FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hussin" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Hussin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Federal Financial Group, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00923 - MMA-NLS (S.D. Cal., April 27, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system. Federal Financial Group, LLC is in the business of offering financial planning services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com FOOD MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Termination Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Roseann Barnett, Gary Bowles, Onesimo Cantoran, Sabino Gonzales, Adriana Macias, Marcos Miranda, Angel Ortiz, Maria Ramirez, Violeta Ramirez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Food Management Partners, Inc. and Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-03140 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid 60 days' compensation and penalties that the Defendants failed to pay in connection with the recent closing of over 75 Coco's Bakery and Carrows restaurants. Food Management Partners, Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principle place of business in Hollywood Park, Texas. Food recently acquired Catalina Restaurant Group. Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates and manages Coco's Bakery and Carrows restaurant chains. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol Street, Ste. 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com - and - Angie M. Kwik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANGIE M. KWIK 9891 Irvine Center Drive, #200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 398-8218 Facsimile: (949) 333-8000 E-mail: angie@amkwiklaw.com FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Rosales and Nirav Shah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly Situtated v. Forcefield Energy Inc., David Natan, Jason Williams, and Richard St-Julien, Case No. 1:15-cv-03279 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 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: Joseph Peter Guglielmo, Esq. Thomas Livezey Laughlin, Esq. Joseph V. Halloran, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington A venue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com tlaughlin@scott-scott.com jhalloran@scott-scott.com - and - David R. Scott, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com FORD MOTOR: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dist. Court Ruling in Bayshore Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed a district court judgment in BAYSHORE FORD TRUCK SALES INC., a Delaware corporation; MOTOR CITY TRUCKS, INC., a Delaware corporation; COLONY FORD TRUCK CENTER, INC., a Rhode Island corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Allegheny Ford Truck Sales; All- State Truck Sales; Atlantic Ford Truck; Bedford Ford; Bi-State Ford; Ford Truck Sales; Bondy's Ford; Bridgehaven Ford Truck Sales; Broadway Ford Truck Sales; Carl Beasley Ford; Central Ford Truck Sales; Chesapeake Ford Sales Truck; Country Ford Trucks; Cresent Ford Trucks; Crossroads Ford; Dave Syverson Ford; Don Sanderson Ford; Don's Truck Sales; Elliot-Wilson Capitol Truck; Freedom Ford Truck Center; Friend Motor Sales; Gabrielli Ford; Gateway Motors; Gator Ford; Golden State Ford; Graham Ford; Harr Ford; Heintzelman's Trucks; Hubco Ford Truck Sales; Interstate Ford Truck; Kayser Ford; Keystone Ford Truck Sales; L&S Truck Sales; La Crosse Truck Center; Lee Smith Ford; Leif Johnson Ford Truck City; LJL Truck Center; Manderbach Ford; Merle Kelly Ford; Mid Tenn Ford Truck Sales; Miramar Ford Truck Sales; Mission Valley Ford Truck Sales; Mountain State Ford Truck Sales; Murray's Ford; Orange Motor Co.; Palmetto Ford Truck Sales; Peck Road Ford Truck Sales; Piedmont Ford Trucks; Prestige Ford; River City Ford Truck Sales; Salinas Valley Ford Sales; Southland Truck Center; Sunbury Motor Company; Treadwell Ford; Tri-Point Ford Truck Sales; Tri-State Ford Trucks; Truck Center; V&H; Valley Ford Truck Sales; Wabash Ford Truck Sales; Wolverine Ford Trucks Sales, Appellants, NO. 14-1070. Seventy-four dealers sued Ford in federal court for breach of a Heavy Truck Sales and Service Agreement (SSA). Because each dealer had effectively the same SSA with Ford Motor Company, the District Court certified the dealers as a class for determination of Ford's liability for alleged breach of the SSA. The court held Ford breached the SSA and entered partial summary judgment for the seventy-four class member dealers on the issue of liability. Finding plaintiffs' expert's damages model produced intra-class conflicts, the court later decertified the class as to damages. The liability class, however, remained intact at all times. In a single bellwether trial, a jury then awarded eleven members of the liability class -- the three class representatives and eight other class members (the "bellwether" dealers) -- $29 million in damages. Expecting the bellwether appeal would facilitate the resolution of the remaining sixty-three dealers' claims, the court subsequently entered final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in favor of the eleven bellwether dealers. Ford appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and the jury's damages award. In a nonprecedential opinion in Bayshore Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 540 F. App'x 113 (3d Cir. 2013) (Bayshore I), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held Ford had not breached the SSA; reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment on the issue of liability; and remanded with instructions to enter judgment on liability in Ford's favor. On remand, the District Court entered a judgment holding Ford not liable with regard to the entire class. The remaining sixty-three members of the liability class then moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. The court denied their motion on the ground that all class members were bound by Bayshore I's resolution of liability in favor of Ford. On appeal, the sixty-three dealers contend they are not bound by Bayshore I because the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over them in that case. "The sixty-three dealers asked the Third Circuit to determine that Ford breached the SSA even though Bayshore I resolved this exact same issue on the exact same facts against the three named class representatives and the eight other dealers. But a core principle of issue preclusion is that "later courts should honor the first actual decision of a matter that has been actually litigated," 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 4416 (2d ed. Sept. 2014). The sixty-three dealers were adequately represented by fellow class members in Bayshore I for our determination of the very same issue of liability, and we are bound by that decision," ruled the Third Circuit in its April 14, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1GyxOGxfrom Leagle.com. Counsel for Appellants: Eric L. Chase, Esq. BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS 325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 301 Florham Park, NJ 07932 - and - Steven M. Klepper, Esq. James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM One South Street, Suite 2600 Commerce Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Counsel for Appellees: Paul J. Halasz, Esq. Dennis LaFiura, Esq. DAY PITNEY One Jefferson Road Parsippany, NJ 07054 - and - Sean M. Marotta, Esq. Dominic F. Perella, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US 555 Thirteenth Street N.W. Columbia Square Washington, DC 20004 FORT COLLINS, CO: Reveals Panhandling Settlement Details -------------------------------------------------------- Coloradoan reports that the City of Fort Collins as part of an out-of-court settlement will pay more than $80,000 to the Colorado arm of the American Civil Liberties Union and will no longer enforce rules against people who engage in passive panhandling. Details of the settlement were announced on March 30, just days after it was revealed the two parties were working to stave off a court battle challenging the legality of certain parts of the city's panhandling enforcement. As part of the agreement, the city will pay the ACLU $82,500 in legal fees, $100 to each of the three homeless people seeking damages, and it will be required to give the civil liberties union written notice before City Council considers adoption of any new panhandling ordinances. "The City is pleased to be able to settle this case in a prudent manner at this time," said City Attorney Carrie Daggett in a written statement. "The City will continue to address panhandling-related issues as needed in the future in order to best serve all of Fort Collins' residents and businesses." Under the agreement, "passive panhandling" refers to people who sit or stand with a sign seeking donations "without addressing their solicitations to any specific person, other than in response to an inquiry by that person." The ACLU of Colorado on Feb. 10 sued the city on behalf of four homeless individuals on the grounds that police were infringing upon free-speech rights by warning individuals about solicitation or citing people for some forms of panhandling. The 29-page document also included allegations from Greenpeace, Inc., that Fort Collins police have started targeting the environmental group's canvassing procedures in Old Town. GALILEE MEMORIAL: Lawyers Get Access to Cemetery Grounds -------------------------------------------------------- Clay Bailey, writing for Commercial Appeal, reports that attorneys representing parties in the Galilee Memorial Gardens case were given access to the troubled cemetery on March 30 -- the first time many of them had been inside the grounds since a court order locked the gates 14 months ago. David Kustoff, the former U.S. attorney who is the local representative of the state in matters regarding Galilee, said the state "agreed upon an inspection for the lawyers representing the different parties" in the civil litigation regarding the cemetery on Ellis Road in Bartlett. Jemar Lambert, owner of Galilee, pleaded guilty earlier in March to charges in connection with the operation of the cemetery. Mr. Lambert received a 10-year suspended sentence in the case and was placed on probation for those 10 years, avoiding jail time. The sunny afternoon on March 30 provided a view of the grounds, previously only visible from the locked gates on Ellis. There was the washed out area where Mr. Lambert reportedly had removed the pavement from a road in hopes of gaining more burial spaces. There were dozens of monuments near the small office in the southwest corner of the property. Nearby, a tent used over gravesites during ceremonies was bent, near collapsing. The ground over one grave where the person died more than 10 years ago was humped as if it was a recent burial. Another from 2013 was sunken below ground level. Many spots sunken in the shape of what seemed to be a grave had no tombstone or marking. "Not to be too dramatic about it, but it's like walking through a thousand people's nightmares," said Jason Yasinsky, an attorney with Nahon, Saharovich and Trotz, which represents about 100 families in a class-action lawsuit in Circuit Court. He later added: "It's amazing. It doesn't look like a cemetery. Some spots look more like a construction zone." In some places, headstones adjacent to each other face opposite directions. Others seem to be tossed haphazardly in a spot with no connection to a grid of burial plots. Marble and brass headstones are cracked in the middle -- a result, some say, from a backhoe rolling over the marker. Allegations regarding operation of the cemetery included employees using a backhoe wheel to roll over caskets, crushing them while pushing them deeper into the ground to make room for coffins to be stacked on top of each other. There also were a number of claims that poor record-keeping and operation of the cemetery led to lost bodies and reports of employees opening previously buried caskets to see if they could identify the remains of a lost corpse. Howard Manis, an attorney for another of the class action lawsuits against Galilee and funeral homes who worked with the cemetery, said the March 30 access provided a firsthand look for the lawyers involved to see not only the look of the grounds, but a glimpse into what may have happened there. "I think it is a good example to all of the lawyers, the magnitude of the issues that went on out here," Mr. Manis said. "I hope that it sends a message loud and clear that the funeral directors should have known something. "I don't think there's any question as to the practices out here. You look at the conditions of a lot of the headstones, the way things are laid out, there's too many red flags." Al McLean, an attorney representing defendant Christian Funeral Directors, was among those walking the grounds gathering information about Galilee. He noted the graves that were beyond the property line -- burials on adjacent land owned by a trust that led to the charge of theft over $60,000 against Lambert -- and the condition of the grounds. He said it looked like "an older cemetery." Mr. McLean disagreed that the funeral homes should be a party to the class action lawsuits. "We think it is the cemetery's obligation to properly inter the loved ones, and that the funeral home's obligations specifically exclude the interment part of the process," Mr. McLean said. "That seems to be what's at issue: Whether their loved ones were interred properly, and whether the graves were maintained after they were interred." Several said they weren't necessarily surprised by the condition, but still taken aback by what happened to the grounds. "There's no rhyme or reason to any of the places, dates, times, anything," Mr. Manis said. "Seeing it now, it's a wasteland. It really is," Mr. Yasinsky said. GENERAL CABLE: Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Due --------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend a judgment and for leave to file the proposed amended complaint, is due on March 17, 2015. The Company said, "Two civil complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory Kenny, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the "City of Livonia Complaint"). The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that we employed inadequate internal financial reporting controls that resulted in, among other things, improper revenue recognition, understated cost of sales, overstated operating income, net income and earnings per share, and the failure to detect inventory lost through theft; that we issued materially false financial results that had to be restated on two occasions; and that statements of Messrs. Kenny and Robinson that they had tested and found effective our internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure were false. The City of Livonia Complaint alleged that as a result of the foregoing, our stock price was artificially inflated and the plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchase of our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint seeked damages in an unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive or other relief as the Court deems just and proper." "On July 18, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the City of Livonia Complaint based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After oral argument on January 7, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 27, 2015. On February 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the January 27, 2015 judgment and for leave to file the proposed amended complaint. Under the Local Rules, defendants' opposition to the motion is due on March 17, 2015." GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Alleging Zofran-Related Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Duong v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11627 (D. Mass., April 17, 2015) is brought by the Plaintiff relating to alleged injuries arising from her prenatal use of the prescription drug ondansetron, sold by the Defendant under the name Zofran(R). Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those patients, who were afflicted with the most severe nausea, which includes nausea associated with cancer treatment like radiation or chemotherapy. Ms. Duong, a resident of Norfolk County, Massachusetts, alleges that the use of Zofran by women, who are pregnant, increases the risk of birth defects. GSK is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. GSK's sole member is GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Dardeno, Esq. Alexander D. Wall, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANK N. DARDENO, LLP 424 Broadway Somerville, MA 02145 Telephone: (617) 666-2600 Facsimile: (617) 666-2794 E-mail: rdardeno@dardeno.com awall@dardeno.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. Richard Kirchner, Esq. Kevin Barry, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (781) 350-0000 E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us GOOGLE INC: Court Wants Documents in Privacy Suit to be Sealed -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Paul s. Grewal issued an order in IN RE GOOGLE, INC. PRIVACY POLICY LITIGATION, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-01382-PSG, (N.D. Cal.) on an administrative motion to seal several documents. According to Mag. Judge Grewal's April 9, 2015 Order, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1JU8ptXfrom Leagle.com: Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation to Seal --------------------- ------ -------------------------- Exhibit B to the DENIED No declaration in Declaration of James J. support filed with the Sabella court as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Exhibit D to the DENIED No declaration in Declaration of James J. support filed with the Sabella court as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Exhibit J to the SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration of James J. personal information. Sabella Exhibit K to the SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration of James J. personal information. Sabella Exhibit L to the SEALED Narrowly tailored to Declaration of James J. personal information. Sabella Opposition to DENIED No declaration in Defendant Google, Inc.'s support filed with the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' court as required by Consolidated Third Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1) Amended Class Action Complaint or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss a class action has not yet been set. "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.," the Company said. "The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was consolidated with the Tucker case for discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010." "During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. "On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002. On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. A hearing on our motion has not yet been set." HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Kings' First Amended Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Brian S. Miller entered an order on April 13, 2015, in the case captioned SAVOIL KING and DOROTHY KING for themselves and all Arkansas residents similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14CV00183 BSM, (E.D. Ark.). Judge Miller held that based on the record and the representations made during the conference of March 13, 2015, plaintiffs Savoil and Dorothy King's first amended class action complaint is dismissed and the Kings' motions to certify class and to appoint interim counsel are denied. The Kings' motion for relief is also denied. "The Kings acknowledge that their mortgage contract, which is assigned to a third-party REMIC trust, created Homeward's right to purchase force-placed insurance . . . Although there is no contract between the Kings and Homeward, the uncontested mortgage contract between the Kings and the REMIC trust precludes the Kings' unjust enrichment claims against all defendants . . . Therefore, there is nothing to be tried in this court and dismissal is appropriate," ruled Judge Miller. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/DpXz6Ffrom Leagle.com. INTERTHINX INC: Obtains Final Judgment on "Shaw" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A final judgment was entered on April 22, 2015, in CELESTE SHAW; JUDITH VERHEECKE; SHABNAM SHEILA DEHDASHTIAN; MEDHAT GAREEB; AND DEJAN NAGL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERTHINX, INC., a California Corporation; and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-01229-REB-NYW, (D. Col.), a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/3vRy1Mfrom Leagle.com. The court held that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class Members and meets the prerequisites for a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216. The Settlement Classes are finally certified for settlement purposes only. Class Counsel are awarded attorney fees in the requested amount of $2,000,000 and litigation expenses in the requested amount of $62,388.58. Named Plaintiffs are awarded incentive payments in the requested amount of $10,000 each and Deposed Opt-in Plaintiffs are awarded incentive payments in the requested amount of $2,500. The Court directed Defendants to deposit the settlement funds into an interest-bearing account, through the settlement administrator, within 15 business days. Interested parties have 30 days to file an appeal of the Order, and if no appeal is timely filed, the settlement administrator will transmit class counsel's attorney fees and costs to each class counsel in the amount agreed on by them as soon as practicable, but no later than 14 calendar days, after the period to timely appeal expires. That final judgment is entered with respect to all released claims of the class members. That without affecting the finality of this judgment in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction over (a) implementation of the Settlement; (b) distribution of the Settlement proceeds, the incentive awards, and the attorneys' fees and expenses; and (c) all other proceedings related to the implementation and interpretation. On Defendants' payment of the entire Settlement amount to the Settlement Administrator or within 30 days after the date of the Order, whichever is earlier, the case will be dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear its own costs and attorney fees, except as otherwise provided in the Order. INTUIT INC: Faces "Knoch" Suit Over Illegal Tax Return Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- Carol Knoch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intuit, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03650 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide security measures to protect third party non-customers from filing fraudulent tax returns. Intuit, Inc.is an American software company that develops financial and tax preparation software and related services for small businesses, accountants and individuals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Michael L. Silverman SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 E-mail: www.siprut.com jsiprut@siprut.com msilverman@siprut.com JACO OIL: De Santos Gets OK to File First Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to a stipulation signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on April 8, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1bheLb2from Leagle.com, the parties to the case captioned LINDA DE SANTOS an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACO OIL COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00738-JLT, (E.D. Cal.) has agreed that Ms. De Santos may file her first amended complaint. The Defendants' answer to the first amended complaint will be filed no later than five court days thereafter. The Plaintiff filed this class action on May 16, 2014, based on Defendant JACO's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. (FCRA), and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code Section 1786, et seq. (ICRAA). Ross E. Shanberg -- rshanberg@ssfirm.com -- Shane C. Stafford -- sstafford@ssfirm.com -- Aaron A. Bartz -- abartz@ssfirm.com -- SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ, LLP, Irvine, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA DE SANTOS and all others similarly situated. KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER, COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL LLP David J. Cooper -- dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Connie M. Parker -- cparker@kleinlaw.com -- Attorneys for Defendant JACO OIL COMPANY. JAGUAR ENERGY: Removes "Combs" Suit to Colorado District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Combs v. Jaguar Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2015cv30342, was removed from the Adams County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00815 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The Defendant is represented by: Erich L. Bethke, Esq. SENN VISCIANO CANGES, P.C. 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 298-1122 Facsimile: (303) 296-9101 E-mail: ebethke@sennlaw.com JB HUNT: "Wheat" Suit Transferred From N.D. to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Wheat v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05431, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02849-MWF-AS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leslie H. Joyner, Esq. Christina Ann Humphrey, Esq. Stanley Donald Saltzman, Esq. MARLIN SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com The Defendant is represented by: Sophia Behnia, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: sbehnia@littler.com - and - Keith A. Jacoby, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com K&L GATES: Hearing on "Siegal" Suit Settlement Moved to May 21 -------------------------------------------------------------- In an order entered March 23, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/V9aJhXfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Richard Seeborg continued from March 26, 2015 to May 21, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in STEVEN SIEGAL, JAMES RYBICKI, DAVID GROBLEBE, individually and as General Partner of GROBCO II, and CHRISTIAN WIPF, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL INDIVIDUALS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. G. THOMAS GAMBLE, LOREN J. MILLER, HENRY LOWENSTEIN, PAUL W. BATEMAN, EDWARD M. GABRIEL, JAMES S. MAYER, BEHROOZ SARAFRAZ, LYNN BLYSTONE, ALFRED LOPEZ, MASTON CUNNINGHAM, JOHN DURBIN, GREG BILLINGER, K&L GATES LLP, CHARLES A. DALE III, JOSHUA LANE, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, CASE NO. 13 CIV. 3570-RS, (N.D. Cal.). Defendants K&L Gates LLP, Charles A. Dale III, and Joshua Lane filed the motion to continue the hearing. Joseph P. McMonigle -- jmcmonigle@longlevit.com -- John B. Sullivan -- jsullivan@longlevit.com -- Kate Kimberlin -- kkimberlin@longlevit.com -- LONG & LEVIT LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants K&L GATES LLP, CHARLES DALE, III and JOSHUA LANE. KENT'S MEATS: Duckworth to Amend Case to Omit Wage/Hour Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Troy L. Nunley signed on April 9, 2015, an order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/vLcGipfrom Leagle.com, approving a stipulation between the parties in the case captioned THERESA DUCKWORTH, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff, v. KENT'S MEATS & GROCERIES, INC., a California corporation; KENT W. PFRIMMER, an individual; JERRY WOBBE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant(s), CASE NO. 2:15-CV-00292-TLN-CMK, (E.D. Cal.). On March 25, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's wage and hour class claims (Claims for Relief 10 through 16). Defendants argued that the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state wage and hour claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). The Plaintiff does not concede to Defendants' arguments for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over the disputed claims. Pursuant to the order entered by Judge Nunley: A. Plaintiff will file an amended complaint that omits Claims for Relief 10 through 16. B. Plaintiff will file the dismissed claims in the Superior Court of California, County of Shasta. C. Any tolling of Plaintiff's statute of limitations for the dismissed claims is governed by federal and/or state law. D. Immediately after filing of this stipulation, Defendants will withdraw their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state claims. David Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com -- Caroline Tahmassian -- caroline@spivaklaw.com -- THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM, Beverly Hills, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, THERESA DUCKWORTH. Dennis C. Huie -- dhuie@rjo.com -- Aaron M. Scolari -- ascolari@rjo.com -- ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants Kent's Meats & Groceries, Inc. and Kent W. Pfrimmer. KEYCORP: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Litigation Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- KeyCorp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the District Court denied KeyBank's Second Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint in the Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. KeyBank was named a defendant in a putative class action seeking to represent a national class of KeyBank customers allegedly harmed by KeyBank's overdraft practices. The case was transferred and consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery and motion proceedings to a multidistrict proceeding styled In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "District Court"). KeyBank filed a notice of appeal in regard to the denial by the District Court of a motion to compel arbitration. In August 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the "Eleventh Circuit") vacated the District Court's order denying KeyBank's motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further consideration. In June 2013, KeyBank filed with the District Court its renewed motion to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss litigation. The District Court granted KeyBank's renewed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed. On June 18, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the District Court's order granting KeyBank's renewed motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case to the District Court to address the issue of the enforceability of KeyBank's arbitration provision. On February 3, 2015, the District Court denied KeyBank's Second Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint. KeyBank expects to file an appeal. KING DIGITAL: Faces Securities Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on March 30 disclosed that an investor of King Digital Entertainment plc has filed a federal securities fraud class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 in connection with the company's March 26, 2014 initial public stock offering. King Digital produces and distributes digital games on multiple platforms internationally. King Digital Misrepresents Its Business Practices Since the company's March 27, 2014 IPO, King Digital stock has dropped from $22.50 per share, to as low as $11.25 per share on October 14, 2014. According to the complaint, King Digital knew and failed to disclose certain material financial information in the company's registration statement issued in connection with the IPO. King Digital's registration statement highlighted the longevity of its Candy Crush game and the growth in monthly active users. In reality, a significant number of individuals paying to play Candy Crush Saga, which in the fourth quarter of 2013 accounted for 78% of the company's gross bookings and was thus the primary source of the company's revenue, were no longer playing the game. As a result of this decline in use, Candy Crush Saga became a weight on King Digital that hampered the company's financial results. King Digital Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a shareholder rights law firm. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. KPMG: Settles PIF Class Action for Up to $30 Million ---------------------------------------------------- Lisa Allen, writing for The Australian, reports that auditing and accounting giant KPMG has settled a long-running class action for up to $30 million -- enabling thousands of retiree unitholders, mainly from NSW and southeast Queensland, to reap 1.5c per unit down from their $1 purchase price. Some of the more than 10,000 unitholders in the Premium Income Fund were involved in the class action against KPMG, which acted as compliance auditor for the fund that invested heavily in real estate during the 2006 real estate boom. PIF is an offshoot of Gold Coast-based finance, property and tourism group MFS, also known as Octaviar, which collapsed in 2008 owing investors billions of dollars. Federal Court judge Nye Perram said in the judgment, handed down late on March 27, that KPMG would probably have won the case if it had gone to trial, but sources said the class action had put the accountancy firm under enormous pressure in the past five years and it wanted to mitigate any further damage. "The proceedings were most likely to end in a heavy defeat," Justice Perram said. "Far from being not enough, the settlement was as good as it was going to get." The unitholders brought the class action against KPMG over its role in auditing the Premium Income Fund's compliance plan. The judgment found that PIF entered into a large number of loss- making transactions which were not in accordance with the compliance plan. "The most prominent allegation is that the auditor failed to detect that a number of the loss-making transactions were with related parties." PIF's manager, Wellington Capital managing director Jenny Hutson, said on March 30 she was happy with the outcome of the long- running class action. "We are pleased for the 2008 unitholders that we have achieved what the judge said was the best possible outcome," said Ms. Hutson, who took over PIF in October 2008. Under the terms of the settlement, KPMG agreed to pay $7.871 million in fees to lawyers, including Johnson Winter Slatter and Carneys. Litigation funder Bentham IMF will take up to $10 million of the settlement while unitholders will take the balance. LATSHAW DRILLING: "Meadows 1" Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Meadows v. Latshaw Drilling Company LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00030, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01173-P to the proceeding. The case is brought pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid all overtime wages owed because the Defendant failed to include all remuneration required by the FLSA in calculating his regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin M. Duddlesten, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 932-6419 Facsimile: (214) 273-7484 E-mail: kduddlesten@mcguirewoods.com LATSHAW DRILLING: "Meadows 2" Suit Moved From W.D. to N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Meadows v. Latshaw Drilling Company, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-00031, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01174-D to the proceeding. The action is brought pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 for the Defendant's alleged failure to give the required WARN Act written notice to the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals in connection with a recent mass layoff and plant closing at the Defendant's single site of employment/operational units within which the Plaintiff and the Class Members were employed during the relevant time period. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin M. Duddlesten, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 932-6419 Facsimile: (214) 273-7484 E-mail: kduddlesten@mcguirewoods.com LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Alan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lighthouse Insurance Group, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv- 00665 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls using an automatic telephone dialing system. Lighthouse Insurance Group, Inc. is in the business of generating and providing leads for health insurance companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com LITESPEED ELECTRIC: Fires Worker Who Cried Race Bias, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Vega v. Litespeed Electric, Inc., and Clinton Brown, Individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-02993-ER (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2015) seeks damages to redress the injuries the Plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of being discriminated against on the basis of his race {Hispanic), and then retaliated against and terminated by his employer solely for complaining of discrimination. Litespeed Electric, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation headquartered in New York City. Clinton Brown was an employee of Litespeed, holding the position of "General Foreman." He was the Plaintiff's supervisor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Umansky, Esq. PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 620 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 248-7431 E-mail: aumansky@tpglaws.com LONGUEUIL, CANADA: Group of Residents Opposes Tainted-Water Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CJAD News reports that a group of Longueuil residents are mounting opposition to a class-action lawsuit filed against the city of Longueuil over the tainted-water crisis last January -- suggesting any money residents get would be taken away in municipal taxes down the road. Yves Theriault is spearheading the opposition against the $29 million suit, starting with a web site and Facebook page called Recours Imbuvable (roughly translated: Undrinkable Lawsuit), and a legal letter demanding to be heard when the case reaches the courtroom in Longueuil on April 15. Mr. Theriault has also lined up a lawyer who has agreed to work pro bono on the case. "We're not talking about a tsunami or an earthquake. I haven't heard of anyone being hospitalized because of that problem," Mr. Theriault says. "Sure, there was an inconvenience. Sure, the city mismanaged the thing, especially on a communication level. But it's not worth a class action, and it's like suing ourselves." On Jan. 14, thousands of litres of diesel fuel spilled into the St. Lawrence River from a water treatment plant on Ile Charron, sparking an order for residents of four communities not to consume the water. It took nearly two days for the order to be lifted. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Chavez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Chavez, Anthony Chavez, Jewelia Chavez, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Valerie Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01887-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. It is a retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dario de Ghetaldi, Esq. Amanda L. Riddle, Esq. Clare Capaccioli Velasquez, Esq. COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHETALDI, NASTARI&RIDDLE LLP 700 El Camino Real P.O. Box 669 Millbrae, CA 94030-0669 Telephone: (650) 871-5666 Facsimile: (650) 871-4144 E-mail: deg@coreylaw.com alr@coreylaw.com ccv@coreylaw.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Loup" Class Suit to E.D. Louisiana --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Loup, et al. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 742719, Division "M," was removed from the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, to the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01207-EEF-MBN to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that the putative class consists of all persons in Louisiana, who purchased flooring from Lumber Liquidators that was unfit for its intended or ordinary use. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer N. Willis, Esq. WILLIS & BUCKLEY, APC 3723 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 488-6301 Facsimile: (504) 488-6302 E-mail: jenniferwblaw@bellsouth.net - and - Gary Joseph Gambel, Esq. MURPHY, ROGERS, SLOSS & GAMBEL One Shell Square 701 Poydras St., Suite 400 New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 523-0400 E-mail: ggambel@mrsnola.com Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is represented by: George John Nalley, Jr., Esq. Andrew James Miner, Esq. Bridget D. Nalley, Esq. NALLEY & DEW, APLC 2121 Ridgelake Dr., Suite 200 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 838-8188 E-mail: george@gnalley.com andrew@gnalley.com bridget@gnalley.com Defendant Boucher Construction and Renovation, L.L.C. is represented by: Leonard A. Davis, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 E-mail: ldavis@hhklawfirm.com MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Faces Class Suit Over Game Packages ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel B. Kline, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that cable companies have come under fire in recent years for forcing customers to buy packages of channels rather than allowing them to pick just the ones they want on an a la carte basis. This method, consumers argue, forces them to pay for things they don't want and drives bills up. Sports leagues haven't come under the same scrutiny, yet they're doing the same thing with digital and out-of-market game packages. These offers, which include DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket, Major League Baseball's Extra Innings, and the National Hockey League's Center Ice, all sell fans the right to watch pretty much all out- of-market games. What these packages don't offer is the ability to pick only the team or teams you care about and pay a lower price for access to just their games. That could change, as a federal judge in Manhattan is considering whether to allow a lawsuit brought by a number of fans against MLB and the NHL to receive class action status. Depending on how the suit is resolved, it could determine whether all sports leagues (not just baseball and hockey) are allowed to force fans to buy all the games, rather than just the ones they want. What's being argued The fans bringing the lawsuit want MLB and the NHL to stop using forced bundling. They want people to be allowed to buy packages for individual teams at a lower price than what is currently charged for the current packages, which offer more or less every out-of-market game. The leagues say that forcing them to offer a la carte or team- based packages would drive overall costs up. The plaintiffs in the case say that's not true, reported the Associated Press. They argue that prices should drop as more fans buy access to only the teams or games they're interested in. The lawsuit challenges "the territorial restraints, the systems that prevent the individual teams from broadcasting their games nationwide," said Edward A. Diver, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, the AP reported. It also takes issue with whether the leagues have a legal right to use all-team packages to monopolize the out- of-market distribution of games. The leagues, as you might imagine, disagree, saying that for the lawsuit to deserve class action status, the plaintiffs must show "the kind of common injuries that would qualify large groups of people as a class," according to the AP. A big hurdle While the plaintiffs have a point, the sports leagues don't operate under the same rules as other businesses. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 exempts all four major professional sports leagues from antitrust violations for negotiating television contracts, according to John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt economics professor. "The reasoning of Congress in passing the SBA was that collective negotiations and even revenue distributions would lead to increased competitive balance in the Big Four sports leagues," the AP reported him as saying. He added, "The classic behavior of a sports league cartel is to charge half as many fans twice as much." What this all means While only MLB and the NHL are named in this case, if U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin decides the class action suit can move forward, it has the potential to set a precedent for all sports packages, including the incredibly lucrative NFL Sunday Ticket. Of course, this is only the first step in what could be a long battle. If Judge Scheindlin does rule that the lawsuit deserves class action status, for example, that simply means it moves forward. It doesn't guarantee an end to the forced packaging of games. No matter what the judge decides, this could be a case where the genie has gotten out of the bottle and the leagues will struggle to put it back in. Fans want the right to buy just their team's games without having to pay for content they don't want. It might make sense for the major sports leagues to find ways to deliver that to their audiences before the courts force them to do so. That might give them more ability to set prices that make individual team packages possible, but perhaps less financially attractive than buying all the games. MARINE SPILL: Wilson May Amend BELO Complaint to Demand Jury ------------------------------------------------------------ In In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, SECTION "J". Applies to: No. 12-968 BELO No. 14-2730, NO. MDL 2179, (E.D. La.), before the Court is BP's motion to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial, responses by Class Counsel and individual class member LeRoy G. Wilson, and BP's reply. At issue is whether Wilson is entitled to a jury trial in his Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") lawsuit. As the Magistrate Judge recognized in his scheduling order, the resolution of this issue may have widespread application to all BELO cases. After considering the parties' arguments, the applicable law, and the relevant record, the Court has decided to resolve this issue in an abbreviated fashion. According to District Judge Carl Barbier's April 27, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/wEjcuVfrom Leagle.com, nowhere does the the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("Medical Settlement") state that a BELO lawsuit must be tried to the bench. The Medical Settlement does state that a BELO lawsuit must be filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana Court (though it may be transferred subsequently to another venue), but it does not say that it must be tried to the bench. However, the Court sees no valid reason, why a BELO plaintiff should be precluded from invoking a non- admiralty basis of jurisdiction and demanding a jury. The Court holds that a BELO plaintiff who properly invokes diversity jurisdiction and timely demands a jury is entitled to a jury trial in his or her BELO lawsuit. To be entitled to a jury, the BELO complaint should not invoke admiralty as an alternative basis or otherwise make ambiguous its jurisdictional election and jury demand. BP's motion to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial is, therefore, denied. However, LeRoy G. Wilson is granted leave to amend his BELO complaint to assert diversity jurisdiction, remove references to admiralty jurisdiction, and demand a jury. Wilson must file his amended BELO complaint no later than Monday, May 18, 2015, Judge Barbier ruled. MARRIOTT INT'L: Bid to Supplement Record in "Bond" Case Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Walter Bond and Michael P. Steigman filed a class action complaint against Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott International, Inc. Stock and Cash Incentive seeking unpaid retirement benefits. The Court issued a final judgment in this matter on January 20, 2015, and Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal on February 13, 2015. The record has been transmitted to the Court of Appeals, and Plaintiffs now move to supplement the record with the PowerPoint presentations that both parties gave in open court during the January 12, 2015 oral argument on the motions for summary judgment filed by each side. District Judge Roger W. Titus, in a memorandum opinion and order entered April 9, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1I0srpufrom Leagle.com, denied the request saying Plaintiffs failed to show that supplementation of the record with the PowerPoint presentations used at the summary judgment oral argument would be appropriate. The case is DENNIS WALTER BOND, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. RWT 10- CV-1256, (D. Md.). Dennis Walter Bond, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by George A Zelcs, Korein Tillery LLC, Jay Paul Holland, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, Michael E Klenov, Korein Tillery LLC, Stephen M Tillery, Korein Tillery Swansea, Steven Arthur Katz, Korein Tillery LLC, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, William Herbert Bode, Bode and Grenier LLP & William R Cowden, Bode and Grenier LLP. Michael P Steigman, Plaintiff, represented by Michael E Klenov, Korein Tillery LLC, Jay Paul Holland, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, William R Cowden, Bode and Grenier LLP & William Herbert Bode, Bode and Grenier LLP. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Kathryn Squillario, DLA Piper US LLP, Juliya Ben-Zev, DLA Piper US LLP, April Nelson Ross, Crowell and Moring LLP, Aryeh S Portnoy, Crowell and Moring LLP, Charles P Scheeler, DLA Piper US LLP, Ian Cameron Taylor, DLA Piper US LLP, Jeffrey A Kahntroff, DLA Piper US LLP, Jeffrey L Poston, Crowell and Moring LLP & Mark Muedeking, DLA Piper LLP US. Marriott International, Inc. Stock and Cash Incentive Plan, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Kathryn Squillario, DLA Piper US LLP, Juliya Ben-Zev, DLA Piper US LLP, April Nelson Ross, Crowell and Moring LLP, Aryeh S Portnoy, Crowell and Moring LLP, Charles P Scheeler, DLA Piper US LLP, Ian Cameron Taylor, DLA Piper US LLP, Jeffrey A Kahntroff, DLA Piper US LLP, Jeffrey L Poston, Crowell and Moring LLP & Mark Muedeking, DLA Piper LLP US. Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Movant, represented by Elizabeth Anne Reidy, Nystrom Beckman and Paris LLP & Gary S Thompson, Reed Smith LLP. Host Hotels & Resorts 1009 Comprehensive Stock and Cash Incentive Plan, Movant, represented by Elizabeth Anne Reidy, Nystrom Beckman and Paris LLP & Gary S Thompson, Reed Smith LLP. MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Securities Class Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- The court has entered an order of dismissal of the Securities Class Action against Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. In August and October 2013, two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Robert Cubbin and Karen Spaun. The cases were subsequently consolidated and on April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint naming the same defendants, on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 17, 2009 and February 21, 2014 (the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that during the purported Class Period, the defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to the Company's reserves and reported goodwill. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to our motion to dismiss. On November 5, 2014, the defendants filed another motion to dismiss seeking a dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint. On December 5, 2014 the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntarily dismissal with prejudice of the Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to which the plaintiffs and defendants each agreed not to pursue the other party for costs or attorney fees. On December 8, 2014, the court entered an order of dismissal. MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: "Steinberg" Lawsuit in Preliminary Stage --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit Steinberg v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., et al. is in a preliminary stage, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. In connection with the proposed merger of the Company with Fosun, certain putative class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a purported class of the Company's shareholders. On January 7, 2015, a purported shareholder of Meadowbrook filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, captioned Steinberg v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-10057-JCO-MJH). The Company said, "The lawsuit names Meadowbrook, each of our current directors, former director Herbert Tyner, Fosun, and Fosun's merger vehicles as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take appropriate steps to maximize the value of Meadowbrook to its shareholders, failing to value Meadowbrook properly, and ignoring or not protecting against directors' alleged conflicts of interest in connection with the merger. The lawsuit also alleges that Meadowbrook, Fosun, and Fosun's merger vehicles aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the merger and directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the shareholders and that will obtain the best possible consideration. The lawsuit also purports to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage." MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Klein v. Cubbin Case in Preliminary Stage ---------------------------------------------------------------- The re-filed lawsuit Klein v. Cubbin, et al. is in a preliminary stage, Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On January 9, 2015, and January 12, 2015, two additional lawsuits, captioned Raul v. Cubbin, et al. (Case No. 2015-144933-CB), and Klein v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group, et al. (Case No. 2015- 144948-CB), were filed in the Circuit Court of Oakland County, Michigan. These lawsuits asserted similar claims and allegations to those in the Steinberg lawsuit, on behalf of the same putative class. On February 2, 2015, upon stipulation by all parties, both the Raul and the Klein lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice. On February 6, 2015, the Klein and Raul plaintiffs jointly re- filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, captioned Klein v. Cubbin, et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-10497-JCO-RSW). The lawsuit asserts similar claims and allegations to those in the Steinberg lawsuit, against the same defendants and on behalf of the same putative class of shareholders. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. It also purports to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage. MGM RESORTS: Class Action Parties Agreed to Extend Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs and defendants agreed to extend deadlines for answers and objections and responses to plaintiffs' document requests until April 7, 2015, to allow the Company and Bank of America to pursue amendment of the credit agreement in the second quarter of 2015 in a manner that will moot the action. Adolf Stumpf and RoseMarie Stumpf as trustees for the Christine Stumpf Trust v. MGM Resorts International, et al. (Case No. 10262, filed October 21, 2014, Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), and Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v. Robert H. Baldwin, et al. (Case No. 10290, filed October 28, 2014, Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware). The Stumpf action names as defendants the Company, members of its Board of Directors, and Bank of America Corporation ("Bank of America"). The Pontiac General action names members of the Company's Board of Directors and Bank of America as defendants. Plaintiffs in both actions allege that they are Company stockholders and that they are each acting on behalf of a class including all other Company stockholders. In the alternative, plaintiff in the Pontiac General action alleges that it claims derivatively on behalf of the Company. Plaintiffs in both actions allege that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by unjustifiably approving the Company's Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of December 20, 2012 (the "Credit Agreement" or "Agreement"), which contains what plaintiffs call a "Dead Hand Proxy Put" change of control provision. Plaintiffs in both actions assert that this provision permits Bank of America, as administrative agent under the Credit Agreement, to declare a default, and accelerate payment of all outstanding debt and interest thereunder, in the event of a change of control (i.e., replacement of a majority of the directors by an actual or threatened proxy fight or consent solicitation) under circumstances specified in the Agreement. Plaintiffs in both actions claim that this provision has a coercive effect on stockholder voting for change on the board of directors, and entrenches the Company's incumbent directors. Both complaints further allege that Bank of America aided and abetted the defendant directors in their alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The Pontiac General complaint seeks a declaration that demands the Board of Directors to invalidate the challenged change of control provision would be futile. Both complaints seek a declaratory judgment that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties, that Bank of America aided and abetted this breach, and that the challenged change of control provision is invalid, unenforceable, and severable; a permanent injunction against enforcement of the challenged provision by Bank of America; and attorneys' fees and other costs. Both of these actions were consolidated under the caption In re MGM Resorts International Litigation (Case No. 10290). Plaintiffs designated the complaint in the Pontiac General action as their operative complaint and agreed to a voluntary dismissal of three directors named in the Stumpf complaint but not the Pontiac General complaint -- Mary Chris Gay, William W. Grounds and Gregory M. Spierkel. Plaintiffs and defendants agreed to extend deadlines for answers and objections and responses to plaintiffs' document requests until April 7, 2015, to allow the Company and Bank of America to pursue amendment of the credit agreement in the second quarter of 2015 in a manner that will moot the action. Plaintiffs informed the Company's counsel that in the event their claims are mooted plaintiffs will seek an award of attorneys' fees. MGM RESORTS: No Trial Date Set in MGM MIRAGE Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that no trial date has been set in the case MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation. In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-cv-01558- GMN-LRL. In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada consolidated the Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur Hovhannisyan v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH- RJJ, filed October 19, 2009) putative class actions under the caption "In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation." The cases name the Company and certain former and current directors and officers as defendants and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. After transfer of the cases in 2010 to the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, the court appointed several employee retirement benefits funds as co-lead plaintiffs and their counsel as co-lead and co-liaison counsel. In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009, the Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In September 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. Defendants answered the amended complaint, the court entered a scheduling order and discovery is proceeding. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2014. Defendants filed their opposition to class certification in February 2015. Hearing on the motion after completion of briefing has not been set. No trial date has been set in this case. MICHAELS STORES: "Gettings" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Gettings, et al. v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01641, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02729- KM-SCM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged acquisition and use of consumer or investigative consumer reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiffs and other prospective, current and former employees. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq. Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. David Jay Stone, Esq. BRAGAR, EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 E-mail: squire@bespc.com eagel@bespc.com stone@bespc.com The Defendant is represented by: Pamela Q. Devata, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7882 E-mail: pdevata@seyfarth.com MIDWEST SPORTING: Faces "Gaines" Suit Alleging Job Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Gaines, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Midwest Sporting Goods Distributors Inc., Midwest Racquetball and Sporting Good Distributors Inc. and John H. Lassiter, Case No. 5:15-cv-00414-C (W.D. Okla., April 17, 2015) arises from alleged employment discrimination. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Hurst, Esq. HAMMONS GOWENS HURST & ASSOCIATES 325 Dean A McGee Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-6100 Facsimile: (405) 235-6111 E-mail: amberh@hammonslaw.com MISSISSIPPI: Judge Hears Arguments in MDOC Prisoner Safety Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Le Coz, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that the American Civil Liberties Union and others was set to argue at a federal court hearing on April 1 in Jackson that the Mississippi Department of Corrections fails to protect prisoners at the privately run Walnut Grove Correctional Facility despite promising three years ago to reduce the facility's violent atmosphere. U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves was set to hear testimony from prisoners, a corrections expert and the corporate vice president of Utah-based Management and Training Corp., which has a multimillion-dollar contract to run the prison. "MTC has failed to implement fundamental security measures to ensure prisoner safety, which resulted in two major riots last year that left 25 prisoners seriously injured," read a joint press release by the ACLU National Prison Project, Southern Poverty Law Center and the Jackson-based law firm McDuff and Byrd. The ACLU and SPLC claim the state thus has violated its 2012 settlement agreement to a federal class-action lawsuit the groups had filed two years prior. That lawsuit alleged that Walnut Grove staff promoted a culture of violence and routinely beat and sexually assaulted inmates, most of whom were juveniles. A subsequent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed many of the claims and called the sexual misconduct at Walnut Grove "among the worst that we have seen at any facility anywhere in the nation." As a result, the state agreed to remove juveniles from Walnut Grove and take measures to reduce violence there. But defendants filed a motion earlier in March to terminate the consent decree binding them to the conditions of the settlement agreement. They claim MTC is in "substantial compliance." They also asked Reeves to stop the hearing. "When prison officials file a motion to terminate a consent decree, the plaintiff has to prove there's a constant, ongoing constitutional violation," said Margaret Winter, associate director of the ACLU's National Prison Project. "We said, 'fine, we're going to prove they're violating the Eighth Amendment rights of all prisoners by not protecting them from excessive violence." MONSTER BEVERAGE: District Court Granted Final Approval of Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Monster Beverage Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the District Court has granted final approval of the settlement in the Securities Litigation and entered a final judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "District Court"). On September 17, 2008, a second federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. After the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the "Consolidated Class Action Complaint"). The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the "Class Period"). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks, Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the Company's distribution coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of damages. The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the "Amended Class Action Complaint"). While similar in many respects to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made certain new allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer named Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant. On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including plaintiff's allegations relating to promotional expenses, but denied defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the majority of plaintiff's claims, including plaintiff's channel stuffing allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice, on January 17, 2014. Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on April 16, 2014 to resolve the litigation. Following a fairness hearing, on January 29, 2015, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. Under the terms of the settlement, certain of the Company's insurance carriers paid $16.25 million into an escrow account for distribution to a settlement class, certified by the District Court for settlement purposes only and consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the Class Period (with certain exclusions as specified in the settlement agreement). Under the settlement, defendants and various of their related persons and entities received a full release of all claims that were or could have been brought in the action as well as all claims that arise out of, are based upon or relate to the allegations, transactions, facts, representations, omissions or other matters involved in the complaints filed in the action or any statement communicated to the public during the Class Period, and the purchase, acquisition or sale of the Company's stock during the Class Period. The settlement contained no admission of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues to deny all of the allegations against them and believes that the claims were without merit. Because the full amount of the settlement was paid by the Company's insurance carriers, the settlement did not have an effect on the Company's results of operations. MORGAN STANLEY: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of "Stratte-McClure" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the class action filed by Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. On February 12, 2008, a purported class action, styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") against the Company and certain present and former executives asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint related in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, and also included allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. On August 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 18, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). On January 12, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action. MORGAN STANLEY: July 2 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the final approval hearing of the settlement of the class action filed by Ge Dandong, et al. is scheduled for July 2, 2015. On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The court granted class certification on October 17, 2013. The second amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2014, alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure, that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors, and asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest. On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation, which received preliminary court approval December 2, 2014. The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 2, 2015. MORGAN STANLEY: Plaintiffs' Time to Pursue Appeal Expired --------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the time for plaintiffs to pursue a further appeal expired in the class actions In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al. In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation and Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al were purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses. Both cases were dismissed by the SDNY and their dismissal affirmed by the Second Circuit. On December 3, 2014, the time for plaintiffs to pursue a further appeal expired. MORGAN STANLEY: Deal in Pass-Through Certs. Case Has Final Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the the parties' agreement to settle the Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates litigation has received final court approval. In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a putative class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On December 18, 2014, the parties' agreement to settle the litigation received final court approval, and on December 19, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the action. MORGAN STANLEY: IndyMac Case Settlement Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has issued its final approval of the parties' agreement to settle the IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation. In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, which had been pending in the SDNY, was a class action involving allegations that, among other things, the registration statements and offering documents related to the offerings of certain mortgage pass- through certificates contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations. On February 3, 2015, the court issued its final approval of the parties' agreement to settle the litigation and on February 23, 2015, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the action. MORGAN STANLEY: Parties Agreed to Settle Allstate Insurance Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Allstate Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., which had been pending in the Supreme Court of NY, involved allegations that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. On January 16, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation. MORTGAGE GUARANTY: Faces "Arencibia" Class Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Arencibia and Jose Ayala, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00248-SPC- CM (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2015) alleges violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carmen Dellutri, Esq. David W. Fineman, Esq. THE DELLUTRI LAW GROUP, PA 1436 Royal Palm Square Blvd. Ft. Myers, FL 33919-1049 Telephone: (239) 939-0900 Facsimile: (239) 939-0588 E-mail: cdellutri@dellutrilawgroup.com dfineman@dellutrilawgroup.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Seeks Dismissal of Academic Scandal Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that the NCAA and the University of North Carolina on March 30 asked a federal judge in North Carolina to dismiss a lawsuit connected to the academic scandal involving Tar Heels athletes. In late January, lawyers representing two former UNC athletes sued in North Carolina state court. They alleged breach of contract against UNC for a failure to provide "academically sound classes with legitimate educational instruction." The suit, which seeks to become a class action, also accused the NCAA of negligence because: "Although the NCAA's rules prohibit academic fraud, the NCAA knew of dozens of instances of academic fraud in its member schools' athletic programs over the last century, and it nevertheless refused to implement adequate monitoring systems to detect and prevent these occurrences at its member institutions." In late February, the NCAA had the case removed to federal court under a variety of procedural grounds. On March 30, the NCAA said the case should be thrown out, in part, because it did not owe the plaintiffs a duty to prevent academic fraud at UNC. The NCAA argued that even though "it supplies and enforces rules and guidelines for various aspects of intercollegiate athletics," it is not "subject to liability for the independent actions of its member institutions." In addition to claiming that the case is barred by the 11th Amendment, which limits suits against state governments in state courts, the university said the case was brought after expiration of the state's three-year limit for the filing of a breach-of- contract claim. The suit was filed on behalf of behalf of women's basketball player Rashanda McCants and football player Devon Ramsay by lawyers from Hausfeld LLP, the same firm that is pursuing the Ed O'Bannon antitrust case against the NCAA concerning the use of college athletes' names, images and likenesses. On April 1, the Hausfeld firm issued a statement in which it acerbically juxtaposed a position on education that the NCAA took in the O'Bannon case with its position in the March 30 filing. In the O'Bannon case, the NCAA contended that the prospect of allowing athletes increased compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses would jeopardize the integration of education and athletics -- and that the need to preserve this integration justifies the association's limits on what athletes can receive while playing sports. "This startling inconsistency is unfortunately all too symptomatic of the NCAA's shifting rhetoric and faltering commitment to its college athletes," Hausfeld said in the statement. "NCAA President Mark Emmert has repeatedly proposed that '[w]hat we live for is the education of our athletes,' but the NCAA's record tells a far different story. On the eve of the Final Four, we call on the NCAA and its member schools to commit, finally, to safeguarding a meaningful education for all college athletes, particularly those in revenue sports in Division I that present soaring time demands and a host of priorities outside of the academic sphere." McCants attended UNC from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Ramsay attended the school from 2007 to 2012, but allegedly participated in an irregular class in 2007. The plaintiffs argued in their complaint that the time limit for filing the suit should not apply because of UNC's "fraudulent concealment of material facts regarding the academically unsound nature" of various classes. In the March 30 filing, lawyers for the university responded: "Plaintiffs offer no explanation for how or why they were unaware of what transpired in the three . . . courses they took between themselves while students at the University. Nobody is better positioned to know these facts than Plaintiffs, yet their Complaint offers no explanation for their lack of knowledge -- within the limitations period -- of whether the . . . classes they took required class attendance and included faculty involvement. Indeed, Plaintiffs unquestionably would have been aware at the time they took the courses that they were enrolled 'paper classes' that they were not required to attend, required little to no work, were not taught by a faculty member, and involved no interaction with a faculty member." The NCAA acknowledged that the type of alleged academic fraud that is the subject of the suit "is without question a serious concern for all students." But it also argued that that plaintiffs were attempting to hold the association accountable for "conduct the NCAA did not and could not control." " . . . The NCAA did not assume a duty to ensure the quality of education student-athletes received at member institutions or to protect student-athletes from the independent, voluntary acts of those institutions or their employees," the association wrote. It added that "it was no secret that the NCAA did not review the substance of college courses." In addition, the NCAA argued that what the plaintiffs are seeking through the suit -- the formation of an independent commission to oversee academic integrity in NCAA schools' athletics programs -- is "overbroad." "Plaintiffs seek relief that would extended to all NCAA member institutions, but their allegations are tied solely to events at UNC . . . Plaintiffs effectively ask the Court not to remedy the particular harms they allege, but to dictate broad policy changes to the NCAA. That is not the proper function of injunctive relief, nor even more broadly of the court system." NEW JERSEY: Did Not Violate Medicaid Law, Supreme Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------- Brent Johnson, writing for NJ.com, reports that the state Supreme Court ruled on March 30 that New Jersey did not break the law when it eliminated state-funded Medicaid benefits for legal immigrants who have been in the country for fewer than five years. In a 4-2 decision, the state's highest court agreed with a state appellate court that New Jersey did not violate the U.S. or state constitutions when it altered residency requirements to NJ Family Care -- a state-funded program that provides subsidized Medicaid benefits to low-income residents -- amid a budget crisis in 2010. The state's move ended coverage for thousands of legal immigrants and blocked applications for thousands more. Jennifer B. Condon, the attorney representing the group of immigrants that filed a class-action lawsuit against the state, call the ruling "tragic." "It's a surprising decision that essentially sanctions discrimination against immigrants," said Mr. Condon, an associate law professor at the Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice. "This is a case with devastating consequences for immigrants in New Jersey." Condon added that she and her clients are considering petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. At the center of the issue is the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which Congress enacted in 1996 to reduce the impact of "aliens applying for and receiving public benefits from federal, state, and local governments at increasing rates." The act prevents legal immigrants from receiving any federal benefit for five years after entering the U.S. States, though, were still allowed to offer Medicaid to those immigrants with their own money -- which New Jersey did from 2005 to 2010, in an effort to cut down on costs for emergency hospital charity care. But in 2010, with New Jersey facing a massive budget shortfall, the state Senate voted to prohibit legal immigrants who did not meet the five-year residency requirement to be eliminated from NJ FamilyCare. The requirement remains in place today. In 2011, a group of immigrants filed a class-action lawsuit that claims the state's action violated the equal protection they are guaranteed under the U.S. and state constitutions. A state appellate panel voted 2-1 in 2013 that New Jersey didn't break the law because under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, New Jersey is allowed to decide whether it can afford to shoulder the cost of state-subsidized benefits. "We conclude that when Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power over immigration, cuts off Medicaid funding for a group of aliens, the states cannot be required to restore that coverage using solely state funds," the panel wrote. Judge Jonathan N. Harris dissented, saying he feared the decision would create separate classes of poor immigrants: those who have been here for fewer than five years and those who have been here longer. "Equal treatment requires at the very least that government be as fair to all poor noncitizens as it is to all poor citizens in the provision of affordable health care opportunities," Judge Harris wrote. "Both groups contribute to the taxes that pay for NJ FamilyCare and the record does not establish a principled distinction between the two groups to justify the five-year waiting period visited upon greenhorn aliens." The state Supreme Court on March 30 did not write a detailed opinion on the case. Instead, the justices said they simply agreed with the appellate panel's reasoning. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justice Barry Albin said they dissented for the same reasons Harris did in the appellate decision. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Human Services did not immediately return a message seeking comment. NEXTEL COMMS: 2nd Cir. Addresses Punitive Damages Questions ----------------------------------------------------------- Evan M. Tager, Esq. -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP, in an article for International Law Office, reports that some of the most important unanswered questions in the law of punitive damages relate to the procedures governing the imposition of punitive damages in a class action. The Second Circuit addressed one such question in Johnson v Nextel Communications Inc. Facts The plaintiffs in the case are 587 individuals who had filed discrimination claims against their employer, Nextel. Nextel entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs' law firm to set up a dispute resolution process to resolve the claims without litigation. After most of the claims settled, a few plaintiffs brought a class action against Nextel and the law firm alleging various causes of action. Much procedural wrangling (including an appeal to the Second Circuit) followed. Ultimately, however, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and adopted a three-phase trial plan. In Phase I a jury would decide the ostensibly common liability issues. In Phase II the same jury would set the compensatory damages for the named plaintiffs, determine whether the defendant was liable for punitive damages and if so "determine a punitive-to-compensatory damages 'ratio' based on defendants' conduct toward the entire class". In Phase III mini-trials would be held before multiple juries to determine compensatory damages for each class member and resolve any individualized defenses. The court would then mechanically apply the ratio established in Phase II to the damages awarded in Phase III to determine the amount of punitive damages to be received by each class member, "while retaining the discretion to make an independent assessment of whether the total award was inappropriate for any particular class member". Both defendants appealed, but the law firm settled and dismissed its appeal, leaving Nextel as the sole appellant. Decision The Second Circuit agreed with Nextel that the district court had abused its discretion in certifying a class. The court then went on to address the propriety of the trial plan, holding that: "under the specific facts of this case and the trial plan proposed here, determining a punitive damages ratio without any grounding in a compensatory damages award is impracticable and fails to give the jury an adequate basis for determining what measure of punitive damages is appropriate." The court explained that under the US Supreme Court's decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co v Campbell: "the propriety of the ratio can be meaningfully assessed only when comparing the ratio to the amount of compensatory damages awarded. A larger punitive-to-compensatory ratio may be appropriate where 'a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages,' and similarly, '[w]hen compensatory damages are substantial, then a lesser ratio, perhaps only equal to compensatory damages, can reach the outermost limit of the due process guarantee." However, under the trial plan adopted by the district court, the Phase II jury would be tasked with: "determin[ing] a punitive damages ratio based on an amalgam of the actual damages to only the named plaintiffs and defendants' conduct toward the entire class. Whatever considerations would go into developing the punitive damages ratio in [the] trial plan, the Phase II jury would lack any conception of the actual damages to the members of the class to whom the ratio would subsequently be applied." Comment This ruling effectively ends -- in the courts of the Second Circuit at least -- the threat presented by trial plans that seek to obtain a once-and-for-all ratio of punitive to compensatory damages before the total amount of compensatory damages is known. That is a real benefit for defendants because a ratio that may seem reasonable in the abstract in the context of a single case (eg, 4:1) may turn out to be grossly excessive when the entire amount of compensatory damages owed to the class is taken into account. This is especially so given the Supreme Court's admonition in State Farm that punitive damages should be awarded only when the compensatory damages fail to satisfy the state's interest in deterrence and punishment. NOVA BENEFIT: Court Enters Show Cause Order in "Dix" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in Mark Dix, et al. v. Nova Benefit Plans, LLC, et al., NO. CV 14-08678-AB (FFMX), (C.D. Cal.) brought their putative class action on November 7, 2014, and served Defendants on December 22, 2014. The parties filed their Joint Rule 26(f) Report on April 13, 2015, which proposed a deadline of January 11, 2016 to file a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was due no later than March 22, 2015 (90 days after Plaintiff served the operative complaint "purporting to commence a class action other than an action subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act" on Defendants). However, Plaintiffs neither moved for class certification on or before March 22, 2015, nor sought leave from the Court to continue their deadline to move for class certification on or before that date. Since the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory filing deadline set forth in Civil Local Rule 23-3, District Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause why the Court should not strike Plaintiffs' class action allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)(1) as immaterial in light of Plaintiffs' failure to timely move for class certification or to timely seek an extension of time to file for class certification. Because the question of class certification significantly impacts the appropriate schedule in this matter, the Court continued the scheduling conference previously scheduled for April 27, 2015 to May 11, 2015. A copy of the Court's April 16, 2015 ruling is available at http://is.gd/qome6Mfrom Leagle.com. Mark Dix, an individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Scott Owens, Callahan Thompson Sherman & Caudill LLP & Robert Walter Thompson, Callahan Thompson Sherman and Caudill LLP. Pamela Dix, an individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Scott Owens, Callahan Thompson Sherman & Caudill LLP & Robert Walter Thompson, Callahan Thompson Sherman and Caudill LLP. SCI Inc, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Scott Owens -- BOwens@ctsclaw.com -- Callahan Thompson Sherman & Caudill LLP & Robert Walter Thompson -- RThompson@ctsclaw.com -- Callahan Thompson Sherman and Caudill LLP. Nova Benefit Plans LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Manuel Saldana, Gordon and Rees LLP & Margret G Parke, Gordon and Rees LLP. Sickness Accident Disability Indemnity Plan & Trust, Defendant, represented by Manuel Saldana -- msaldana@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP & Margret G Parke -- mparke@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership formerly known as Edwards & Angell LLP, Defendant, represented by Joel E Boxer -- jeb@nullbirdmarella.com -- Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow, Douglas A Fretty -- daf@nullbirdmarella.com -- Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow & Mark T Drooks -- mtd@nullbirdmarella.com -- Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow. NY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aida E. Domenech v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, Case No. 1:15-cv-02991-JGK (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Ms. Domenech is a resident of the County of Kings, New York, and was a full-time employee of NYCERS. She seeks damages to redress the injuries she allegedly suffered as a result of being retaliated against by her employer for complaining of discrimination. She adds that she was denied a reasonable accommodation for her disability (severe anxiety disorder), and denied a Religious accommodation for a religious observance. New York City Employees' Retirement System is a department subdivision of the City of New York and is a municipal entity duly existing pursuant to the laws of the state of New York. Headquartered in Brooklyn, is the largest municipal public employee retirement system in the United States with over 300,000 active members and retirees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Umansky, Esq. PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 620 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 248-7431 E-mail: aumansky@tpglaws.com OCEAN DETAILING: "Lovinsky" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Lovinsky, Mario Saint Fort, Jacques Bien-Aime, Wilkent Duclos, Celord Barbier, and all other similarly situated v. Ocean Detailing USA Management Inc., and Russell C. Grande, Case No. 9:15-cv-80537-DMM (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an auto repair shop in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Helana Elise Balkin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HELANA BALKIN, P.A. 2020 North Bayshore Drive 2404 Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 985-0330 E-mail: helana.balkin@balkinlegal.com OCWEN LOAN: Has Until May 15 to Respond to "Nemerovsky" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Before the Court in DAWN NEMEROVSKY, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-171-FTM-29CM, (M.D. Fla.) is defendant's agreed motion for enlargement of time to respond to complaint, meet and file agreed case management report, and designation as a track three case and supporting memorandum of law, filed on April 20, 2015. Defendant requests a 25-day extension of time to answer, respond, or otherwise move in response to Plaintiff's Complaint, and a 30- day extension to meet and submit to the Court a Case Management Report. As grounds for the motion, the Defendant states that the parties are engaging in settlement negotiations, and the extensions may be helpful in possibly reaching a resolution. The Defendant also requests that the Court change the current Track Two designation to Track Three saying this matter is a complex class action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and due to the nature, extent, and expense of engaging in class action discovery, Defendant requests that this matter be designated as a Track Three case. Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando, in an order entered April 23, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/zCcEtMfrom Leagle.com, ruled that: 1. Defendant's agreed motion for enlargement of time to respond to complaint, meet and file agreed case management report, and designation as a track three case and supporting memorandum of law is granted. 2. Defendant have up to and including May 15, 2015, to answer, respond, or otherwise move in response to Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. The parties have up to and including May 20, 2015, to meet and file their Case Management Report. 4. The Clerk is directed to change the designation of this case from Track Two to Track Three. Dawn Nemerovsky, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Maria Alaimo -- maria@vilesandbeckman.com -- Viles & Beckman, LLC. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian Pantaleo -- bpantaleo@edwardswildman.com -- Edwards Wildman, LLP, Simon A. Fleischmann -- sfleischmann@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP & Thomas J. Cunningham -- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP. OLD REPUBLIC: Class Not Certified in 2 Class Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a class has not been certified in two class action lawsuits. On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class action suits alleging Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") violations were filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in either suit and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together "RMIC") has filed motions to dismiss the cases. ONE ABINGDON: "Lazo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Lazo, Humberto Garcia, and Felipe Mendoza, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees v. One Abingdon Square Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a One Abingdon Market, and Hyoung Paek, Case No. 1:15-cv-03285-KBF (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 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 24-hour market in New York City. 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 PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Judge Dismisses Credit Check Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that just under three months after Michael Peikoff first went after the Viacom- owned studio in federal court for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the case is over. Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that while Paramount Pictures may have not been totally upfront in its intention to run credit report checks on potential employment seekers like Mr. Peikoff, it didn't disregard federal law requirements. "Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted," the U.S. District judge wrote on March 25. "And because any amendment would be futile, the dismissal is with prejudice." Filed by Mr. Peikoff in early January, the class action-seeking compliant alleged that "Defendant Paramount had in fact procured and/or caused to be procured a 'consumer report' regarding him for employment purposes based on the illegal disclosure and authorization form" when the plaintiff had applied for a gig there in February 2011. Technically, that disclosure about a potential employer seeking a credit report needed to be its own release form and not in the application form itself, said the lawsuit, and hence the potential FRCA violation. Mr. Peikoff said in the filing seeking a jury trial that he had only learned about this in the years since seeking the unnamed job at Paramount. Claiming an estimated class membership of more than 500, the complaint was aiming for statutory damages from $100-$1,000 for each FCRA violation as well as punitive damages and legal fees. Nope said the judge. "Even if inclusion of the certification in Paramount's disclosure form did not comply with a strict reading of . . . requirement that the document consist solely of the disclosure and the authorization, it is not plausible that Paramount acted in reckless disregard of the requirements of the FCRA by using this language," Judge Chhabria noted in his order. "Nor is it plausible that Paramount violated the FCRA by obtaining the credit checks pursuant to the release found elsewhere in its employment application, rather than its FCRA disclosure and authorization form," he added. "The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case," Judge Chhabria said in a separate judgment handing the legal win to Paramount. While Mr. Peikoff's case is seemingly over unless he tries some sort of appeal, others have proven more successful in the courts with similar FCRA violations. In 2014, Publix supermarket chain paid out more than $6.8 million in a settlement over a similar case. Richard Kendall -- rkendall@kbkfirm.com -- and Nicole Phillis -- nphillis@kbkfirm.com -- of L.A.'s Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP represented Paramount in the matter. Woodland Hills' Peter Dion- Kindem represented Peikoff in the case along with Lonnie Blanchard of LA's Blanchard Law Group. PF CHANG'S: Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington federal judge on March 27 tossed a proposed class action alleging P.F. Chang's China Bistro Inc. failed to prevent a data breach that compromised customers' personal financial data, saying there's no indication the plaintiff has yet suffered any harm, following the nixing of a similar suit in Illinois. Plaintiff Daniel Lovell claimed that, as a result of P.F. Chang's negligent failure to use industry-standard cybersecurity practices, he was harmed because he overpaid for P.F. Chang's food, he now has to protect himself from unauthorized charges on his credit card, and he might be stalked or harassed as a result of the data breach. However, U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik ruled that Lovell didn't explain how the alleged negligence lowered the value of the meal he ordered at P.F. Chang's or made him go to the restaurant when he wouldn't have otherwise. The judge found Mr. Lovell didn't allege he was anxious or provide facts that would lead to the conclusion that he is reasonably afraid of being harassed or stalked in the future. "Millions of people have had their credit and/or debit information stolen from retailers in the past year, yet plaintiff provides no examples of harassment or stalking related to those thefts," the judge said. "Anxiety is compensable only if plaintiff were able to show 'with reasonable probability that he will actually' suffer the feared harm." The judge also found that Mr. Lovell's claim for credit monitoring services was "unclear," since he didn't claim he paid for those services or lost money because of the alleged negligence. Instead, Mr. Lovell claimed he had to add himself to credit fraud watch lists and make sure his credit card company doesn't hold him accountable for unauthorized charges, according to the opinion. "There is no indication that plaintiff has, as yet, suffered any appreciable harm as a consequence of the alleged negligence," the judge said. On March 20, P.F. Chang's China Bistro Inc. asked the Seventh Circuit to uphold a lower court's dismissal of a proposed class action stemming from a data breach at the restaurant chain, arguing the plaintiffs weren't damaged by the attacks since their debit card numbers weren't stolen. An Illinois federal judge in December concluded that plaintiffs hadn't alleged actual harm. Judge Lasnik also dismissed with prejudice Mr. Lovell's breach of fiduciary duty and strict liability claims, saying Mr. Lovell cannot establish a fiduciary relationship under these circumstances and strict liability isn't triggered in such circumstances under Washington state law. "Plaintiff alleges that defendant had superior knowledge of its cybersecurity practices and that plaintiff was induced to share his confidential financial information in reliance on that superior knowledge," the judge said. "While this argument uses all of the right words, the facts of this case are not similar to those in which a fiduciary relationship was found to exist under Washington law." The judge also dismissed claims for breach of implied contract, negligent misrepresentation and violations of the Arizona Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Judge Lasnik said that Mr. Lovell didn't claim that the public is clamoring to know about retailers' cybersecurity practices or that he wants to be notified every time a retailer "falls short on the cybersecurity front." "Recent disclosures of cybersecurity problems -- such as those involving Target, Sony and/or Home Depot -- suggest that, while the breaches make headlines, they do not have much effect on consumer activities," the judge said. Mr. Lovell filed suit in July, after the restaurant announced in June that it had learned of the data breach. The suit claimed that the same cyberattackers behind the Target breach were responsible for the attack on P.F. Chang's. Joel Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- of Block & Leviton LLP, counsel for Mr. Lovell, told Law360 on March 30 that they are reviewing the decision and considering options. P.F. Chang's is represented by Jon P. Kardassakis -- Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Kathleen Nelson -- Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Mr. Lovell is represented by Dan Drachler -- ddrachler@zsz.com -- of Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP and Joel Fleming and Jason Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- of Block & Leviton LLP. The case is Lovell v. PF Chang's China Bistro Inc, case number 2:14-cv-01152, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. POPULAR INC: "Valle" Class Action Has Been Stayed Pending Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank has been stayed pending a ruling on motions. On November 21, 2012, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") was served with a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, filed in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, existing BPNA customers, allege among other things that BPNA has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further alleges that BPNA improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and, additionally, that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by BPNA violate New York's usury laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs. BPNA removed the case to federal court (S.D.N.Y.) and plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed in February 2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an order granting in part BPNA's motion to dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to BPNA's item processing policy. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted in the court's decision and order. BPNA subsequently filed a motion in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further sought to compel arbitration. The matter has been stayed pending a ruling on such motions. POPULAR INC: Quiles Case Wins Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the FLSA action filed by Neysha Quiles. Between December 2013 and January 2014, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") and Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") and Popular, Inc., along with two executive officers, were served with a putative class action complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al. Plaintiffs essentially alleged that they and others, who have been employed by the Defendants as "bank tellers" and other similarly titled positions, were generally paid only for scheduled work time, rather than time actually worked. The Complaint sought to maintain a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all individuals who were employed or were currently employed by the Defendants in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, and Illinois as hourly paid, non- exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time during the past three years and alleged the following claims under the FLSA against all Defendants: (i) failure to pay overtime premiums; and (ii) that the failure to pay was willful. Similar claims were brought under Puerto Rico law on behalf of all individuals who were employed or are currently employed by BPPR in Puerto Rico as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time during the past three years. On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On February 24, 2014, the parties reached an agreement to dismiss the complaint against BPNA and the named BPNA executive officer without prejudice. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs submitted a motion for conditional class certification, which BPPR opposed. On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby it granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the FLSA action. POPULAR INC: Motion to Transfer Fernandez Case Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the motion to transfer the case filed by Nora Fernandez remains pending to date. On May 5, 2014, a putative class action captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies against various UBS entities, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") and Popular Securities. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico is the sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co- sponsor, together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against all defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees. On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually identical complaint in the US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (USDC-PR) and requested that the case be consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties. The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The Popular defendants joined this motion. By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate. The motion to transfer remains pending to date. POPULAR INC: Settlement Terms Being Negotiated in Alvarez Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that settlement terms are currently being negotiated in the case filed by David Alvarez. On May 6, 2014, a putative class action captioned David Alvarez, et al. v. Banco Popular North America was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs generally assert that Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") has engaged in purported violations of Sec.2954.8(a) of the California Civil Code and Sec.17200 et seq. of the California Business Professions Code, which allegedly require financial institutions that make loans secured by certain types of real property located within the state of California to pay interest to borrowers on impound account deposits at a statutory rate of not less than two percent (2%). Plaintiffs maintain that BPNA has not paid interest on such deposits and demand that BPNA be enjoined from engaging in further violations of these provisions and pay an unspecified amount of damages sufficient to repay the unpaid interest on these deposits. PHH Corporation, which acquired the loans at issue in this complaint, has tentatively agreed to indemnify and tender a defense on behalf of BPNA. The court recently entered an order staying all substantive activity, including any responsive pleading, until the initial conference scheduled for August 22, 2014. The parties have subsequently reached an agreement in principle. The settlement terms -- which do not contemplate a payment by BPNA -- are currently being negotiated. POPULAR INC: Plaintiffs in "Valle" Filed Notice of Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on October 7, 2014, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") was served with a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. BPNA, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint names the same plaintiffs who filed the above-described overdraft fee class action suit. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that BPNA engages in unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices relative to the assessment of ATM fees on ATM transactions initialed at Allpoint branded ATMs. The complaint further alleges that BPNA is in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E with respect to ATM fees. On December 2, 2014, BPNA filed a motion to compel arbitration, which plaintiffs opposed. On February 2, 2015, the court entered an opinion and order granting defendant's motion to compel arbitration. On February 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit demanding that the court reverse the district court's ruling. POPULAR INC: Settled Suit by 2 Former Assistant Branch Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on October 3, 2014, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") received notice of a potential class action submitted by two former assistant branch managers. The purported action alleges various wage and hour violations arising from what they contend is an improper job classification under the FLSA and applicable state law equivalents. In December 2014, BPNA accepted plaintiffs' offer to mediate this dispute, and mediation took place on February 19, 2015. As a result of the mediation, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle this claim. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, subject to certain customary conditions including court approval of a final settlement agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of all defendants, defendant will pay the amount of $800,000. PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Astengo" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Astengo and July Astengo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00654 (W.D. Wash., April 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally-identifiable information and personal health information. Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in Montlake Terrace, Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cliff Cantor, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C. 627 208th Ave. SE Sammamish, WA 98074 Telephone: (425) 868-7813 Facsimile: (425) 732-3752 E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Ave., 17th Fl. New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 Facsimile: (212) 292-4442 E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Lynch" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Lynch, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00658 (W.D. Wash., April 27, 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: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com - and - Ariana J. Tadler, Esq. Andrei V. Rado, Esq. John Seredynski, Esq. Adam Bobkin, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: atadler@milberg.com arado@milberg.com jseredynski@milberg.com abobkin@milberg.com RADIAN GROUP: "White" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Decision --------------------------------------------------------------- Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case White v. PNC Financial Services Group is currently stayed pending a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp. On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 titled White v. PNC Financial Services Group (the "White Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 29, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 26, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of limitations. On June 20, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on July 5, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint on July 22, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty's motion on August 18, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. On January 20, 2015, plaintiffs in the White Case filed a motion to strike certain of the affirmative defenses, but not the statute of limitations defense, that had been asserted by Radian Guaranty in its answer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The parties are continuing to file procedural motions in this litigation. However, the White Case is currently stayed pending a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp., which is another putative class action under RESPA in which Radian Guaranty is not a party. RADIAN GROUP: "Menichino" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al. is currently stayed pending a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp. On January 13, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al. (the "Menichino Case"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty was not named as a defendant in the original complaint. On December 4, 2012, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Radian Guaranty as an additional defendant. On February 4, 2013, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it as barred by the statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty's motion on February 4, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. The Menichino Case is currently stayed pending a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp., which is another putative class action under RESPA in which Radian Guaranty is not a party. RADIAN GROUP: "Manners" Case Stayed Pending "Cunningham" Decision ----------------------------------------------------------------- Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al. is currently stayed pending a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp. On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al (the "Manners Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On November 28, 2012, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty's motion and dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty's motion on February 5, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty's ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. The Manners Case is currently stayed pending a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp., which is another putative class action under RESPA in which Radian Guaranty is not a party. RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Must Face Glass-Tainted Pill Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Van Acker and Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, report that a New Jersey federal judge on March 27 denied Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a proposed class action brought by consumers claiming they're entitled to refunds because some batches of the company's generic version of the cholesterol drug Lipitor contained pieces of glass. U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan denied Ranbaxy's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, which accused the pharmaceutical company of failing to warn consumers that their pills may have contained small pieces of glass and later failing to address refunds or replacement products with a limited recall. The November 2012 recall of atorvastatin calcium tablets was classified as a "class II" recall under U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations, meaning the pills were only recalled from retailers and not consumers, according to Ranbaxy's motion. Ranbaxy's motion said that it pulled 41 lots of 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg doses of the generic drug as a precautionary measure and compared the glass particles to "grains of sand," arguing that they didn't pose a health risk due to their small size. The pharmaceutical company also said that the five named plaintiffs had improperly attempted to enforce the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a power exclusively reserved for the federal government. That argument echoed statements made in a 2013 motion to dismiss this suit filed by Express Scripts Inc., but the matter was left unresolved when the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the pharmacy chain shortly after motion was filed. The plaintiffs countered Ranbaxy's argument by claiming that they just wanted a refund for the pills, which they had said met the FDCA's definition of "adulterated" and were therefore below commercial standards. The plaintiffs said their complaint simply referenced the FDCA and its standards to show that they had received a flawed product. Ranbaxy's motion also said that the pills weren't unfit for their intended use because they still contained atorvastatin and provided cholesterol-lowering benefits, which the plaintiffs rejected. "If the defendants honestly believe that the quality standard for generic drugs is that low, it should be a real concern to Americans because the defendants still sell millions of generic pills to consumers," the plaintiffs said. The plaintiffs also defended their renewed claim for an injunction despite having been denied one earlier in the case, arguing that the affected pills should all be returned to Ranbaxy and either be destroyed or barred from being resold. Counsel for the Ranbaxy didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on March 30 and a representative for the plaintiffs declined to comment. Ranbaxy is represented by Michael E. Patunas -- mpatunas@litedepalma.com -- and Mayra V. Tarantino -- mtarantino@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, as well as Jay P. Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- Matthew F. Dexter -- matthew.dexter@kirkland.com -- and Steven J. Menashi -- steven.menashi@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The plaintiffs are represented by Barry J. Gainey -- bgainey@gme-law.com -- of Gainey McKenna & Egleston. The case is Fenwick v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc., case no. 3:12-cv-07354 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. ROBERT'S ASPHALT: "Tew" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Tew and Dennis Derby, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Robert's Asphalt Company, Inc., Rosemar Contracting, Inc., Rosemar Construction, Inc., Patrick Tew, Jeffrey Tew, Colleen Tew and Robert Garone, Case No. 2:15-cv- 02379 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a residential and commercial asphalt paving company with its principle place of business at 1981 Montauk Hwy, Shirley, NY 11967. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com ROMANTIX INC: Faces "Kolias" Suit for Sending Spam Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Kolias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Romantix, Inc., A Colorado Corporation, Case No. 3:15- cv-00936-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants practice of sending unsolicited text messages in the form of bulk spam text messaging. Romantix, Inc. a Colorado corporation that is a premier adult toy retailer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557) HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Andrei Armas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREI ARMAS 245 Fischer Ave, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (858) 336-2518 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 RPM DINING: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RPM Dining, LLC d/b/a The Yellow Rose Men's Cabaret, and Jon Persinger, Case No. 1:15-cv-00336 (W.D. Tex., April 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 each week. The Defendants own and operate a gentlemen's club for adult entertainment in Austin, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin A. Shellist, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza-Ste 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net SAN FRANCISCO: Management Conference in Class Suit on July 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an order on April 9, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1P9sb6jfrom Leagle.com, setting a case management conference in the case captioned SAN FRANCISCO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV- 01545-PJH, (N.D. Cal.). The Case Management Conference will be held on July 16, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. The Court ordered the Lead counsel to meet and confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case Management Conference with respect to those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c). Not less than seven days before the conference, counsel must file a joint case management statement addressing each of the items listed in the "Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern District - Contents of Joint Case Management statement. San Francisco Apartment Association, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP, Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP & James Warren Carson, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni LLP. Coalition for Better Housing, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP, Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP & James Warren Carson, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni LLP. Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP, Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP & James Warren Carson, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni LLP. San Francisco Association of Realtors, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP, Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP & James Warren Carson, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni LLP. Norman T. Larson, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Parrinello, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP, Christopher Elliott Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP & James Warren Carson, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross and Leoni LLP. City and County of San Francisco, Defendant, represented by Jeremy Michael Goldman, San Francisco City Attorney's Office. SANDISK CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 30 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against SanDisk Corporation and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 15-cv- 01455, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased SanDisk securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased SanDisk securities during the Class Period, you have until May 29, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. SanDisk designs, develops, manufactures, and markets data storage solutions in the United States and internationally. The Company offers removable cards, which are used in various applications and consumer devices, including digital cameras, camcorders, smartphones, tablets, and eReaders under the SanDisk Ultra, SanDisk Extreme, and SanDisk Extreme PRO brands; and embedded products that are used in mobile phones, tablets, notebooks, and other portable and wearable devices, as well as in automotive and connected home applications under the brand name iNAND. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding quality control within the corporate organizational structure. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing certain production qualification delays on certain of its key products; (2) the Company was experiencing lower than expected sales of enterprise products; (3) the Company was vulnerable to lower pricing in some areas of the business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would be forced to announce drastically lower first quarter revenue estimates compared to prior forecasts, and withdraw 2015 forecasts for the Company's financial results in their entirety. On March 26, 2015, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release announcing that it expects revenue for the fiscal first quarter "to be approximately $1.3 billion, depending on final sell-through results, compared to the previously forecasted revenue range of $1.40 billion to $1.45 billion." As the Company disclosed, this reduction in guidance was "primarily due to certain product qualification delays, lower than expected sales of enterprise products and lower pricing in some areas of the business." Moreover, the Company announced that it expects continued impact to its 2015 financial results from these factors as well as the previously identified supply challenges, and now forecasts 2015 revenue to be lower than the previously forecast. On this news, shares of SanDisk declined $14.98 per share, or 18.45%, to close on March 26, 2015, at $66.20 per share, on unusually heavy volume. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. SEADRILL LTD: May 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor-rights firm, on March 30 disclosed that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of: (1) purchasers of the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of SeaDrill between July 10, 2014 and November 25, 2014, inclusive; (2) persons and entities who purchased or acquired ADRs of SeaDrill between May 28, 2014 and November 25, 2014, inclusive; and (3) those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of SeaDrill between May 28, 2014 and November 25, 2014, inclusive, including (3a) purchasers of SeaDrill ADRs; (3b) purchasers of SeaDrill's call options; and (3c) sellers of SeaDrill's put options. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 29, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party directing and overseeing the litigation. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. To join the SeaDrill class action, go to the website http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-458.htmlor call Jonathan Horne, Esq. or Phillip Kim toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit claims that statements about the strength of SeaDrill's business and prospects issued by defendants was materially false and misleading. Additionally, SeaDrill has historically paid a large dividend, which it raised twice in early 2014 resulting in the Company paying a $1 per share quarterly dividend during the last two quarters of 2014. Defendants maintained that due to the Company's strong backlog and the strength of its balance sheet, despite any turbulence in the oil industry, the Company would not cut its $4 per share annual dividend. As a result of defendants' statements, SeaDrill ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of over $38 per ADR in July 2014. On November 26, 2014, before the markets opened, SeaDrill reported disappointing third quarter 2014 financial results (for the period ended September 30, 2014), announcing that it had missed its profit targets. In addition, the Company disclosed that it was indefinitely suspending its dividend, citing the Company's need to pay down its debt to strengthen its balance sheet. The Company also disclosed that its Board of Directors had authorized the repurchase of up to 10% of its outstanding shares. On this news, the price of SeaDrill ADRs fell from $20.71 per ADR to $15.99 per ADR on extremely heavy trading volume, a 58% decline from the ADRs' high of over $38 per ADR. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 29, 2015. If you wish to join the class action go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-458.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Gaab" Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Gaab, Roci Bollmann and Paul Danner, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00842-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal., April 16, 2015) is brought over personal injury-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS, BERMAN, SOBOL & SHAPIRO, LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com SOTHEBY'S: Defending Appeal in "Graham" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Sotheby's said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there are meritorious defenses to the appeal in the class action, Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists (and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the State of California or at auction by California sellers and for which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling. Sotheby's believes that there are meritorious defenses to the appeal. SOTHEBY'S: Court Entered Stipulation in St. Louis Action -------------------------------------------------------- Sotheby's said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court entered a stipulation agreed to by the parties and an order regarding dismissal of the Stockholder Actions and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the case The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014). On April 1, 2014, the Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby's stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so- called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing "proxy put" provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before they "approve" the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. On June 4, 2014, the plaintiffs in this action and in the Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System action jointly filed a motion for an order dismissing the Stockholder Actions as moot and for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $3.5 million. On July 25, 2014, Sotheby's filed a brief in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion. A hearing on the motion was held on August 14, 2014. Prior to the Court's resolution of the motion, the parties agreed to a settlement. On January 15, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation agreed to by the parties and an order regarding dismissal of the Stockholder Actions and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses (the "Order"). As required by the Order, Sotheby's is notifying stockholders that the Stockholder Actions are moot and that defendants, through their insurer, have paid to plaintiffs' counsel $1.6 million in full satisfaction of their application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Stockholder Actions. As Sotheby's directors and officers insurance carrier funded the full $1.6 million payment, the resolution of the Stockholder Actions did not result in any cost to Sotheby's. The Order further provides that the Stockholder Actions will be dismissed as moot without further action of the Court unless another stockholder of Sotheby's submits a written objection to the Court within thirty days of this notice. Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No.--9508-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014). On April 3, 2014, Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby's stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing "proxy put" provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before they "approve" the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this action and The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP with the prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motions. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. STANFORD INT'L: US Government Not Liable to Ponzi Scheme Victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals court said on March 30 the United States is not liable to victims of Allen Stanford's fraud who claimed that the Securities and Exchange Commission was incompetent for having taken too long to uncover the swindler's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Miami said the government is entitled to sovereign immunity. Stanford's victims accused the SEC of negligence for having waited until 2009 to uncover the Ponzi scheme, despite having had evidence of it as early as 1997. But the court said the SEC had discretion to decide how to enforce securities laws, and could not be liable for certain misrepresentations. It said this justified shielding it from claims raised by the victims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. "We reach no conclusions as to the SEC's conduct, or whether the latter's actions deserve plaintiffs' condemnation," Circuit Judge Julie Carnes wrote for a three-judge panel. "We do, however, conclude that the United States is shielded from liability for the SEC's alleged negligence." Victims claimed that the SEC thought Stanford's business was a fraud after each of four examinations between 1997 and 2004, but failed to advise the Securities Investor Protection Corp, which compensates victims of failed brokerages. The plaintiffs were led by Carlos Zelaya and George Glantz, who claimed to lose a combined $1.65 million, and sought class-action status. The March 30 decision upheld rulings in 2013 by U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami. Gaytri Kachroo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the SEC in the appeal, did not immediately respond to similar requests. In 2013, federal appeals courts in New York, Philadelphia and Pasadena, California, dismissed lawsuits accusing the SEC of incompetence in investigating Bernard Madoff. Stanford, 65, is appealing his March 2012 conviction and 110-year prison term for what prosecutors called a scam centered on his sale of fraudulent high-yielding certificates of deposit through his Antigua-based Stanford International Bank. The SEC's inspector general in 2010 criticized the regulator for being too slow to uncover Stanford's fraud. The case is Zelaya et al. v. U.S., 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-14780. STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery ------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that MDL action is in the early stages of discovery. "We were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours," the Company. "The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief." "The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of a qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal False Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The qui tam complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states and the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, we filed our answer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended Complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. "Also, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have issued civil investigative demands to explore the allegations made on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided whether to join the Illinois action. The qui tam case is in the early stages of discovery. "Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and in state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action, generally denying the allegations therein. The MDL action is in the early stages of discovery. "We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits." STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Is Proceeding in Junk Fax Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is proceeding in the Junk Fax Lawsuit. "On April 2, 2014, we were served with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) by an individual plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" persons," the Company said. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"). The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of the greater of actual damages or the sum of $500 for each violation and injunctive and other relief. Under the TCPA, the statutory remedy of $500 per violation may be trebled if the Court finds the violations to be willful or knowing. "On May 22, 2014, we filed our answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. Discovery in the case is proceeding," the Company said. STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Christian Zambrano, Luz Durango, Moira Riveros, and Rigoberto Romero on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC, David Kronick, Andrew Kronick, and Mike Ruccio, Case No. 1:15-cv-02373 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC is a transportation and logistics provider for Health Care companies in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH HERZFELD HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com SUNEDISON INC: Updates on Jerry Jones Case ------------------------------------------ SunEdison, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the case Jerry Jones v. SunEdison, Inc., et al. On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") between September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive. The complaint asserted claims against SunEdison and certain of its directors, employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and that the company's stock should not have been made available as an investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint also alleges that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price. On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, including losses the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and discovery has not begun. The company and the named directors and employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding responses. On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The SunEdison defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010. The parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding responses. On October 18, 2010, the court granted the SunEdison defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the parties supplement their arguments relating thereto. Both parties filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010. On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal from the action. On June 29, 2011, the Court entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in this action. The parties each have continued to file additional notices of supplemental authority and responses thereto. On September 27, 2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral argument on their pending motion to dismiss; plaintiff Manuel Acosta joined in the SunEdison defendants' motion for oral argument on October 9, 2012. On March 24, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss but the plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014 granted, a motion to stay entry of final judgment pending a Supreme Court decision in a case that could have implications in this matter. That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the district court, based on that Supreme Court decision. "We believe that we continue to have good reason for a dismissal and intend to vigorously defend this motion," the Company said. "SunEdison believes the above class action is without merit, and we will assert a vigorous defense. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome or resolution of the foregoing class action proceedings or estimate the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect to these proceedings. An unfavorable outcome is not expected to have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We have indemnification agreements with each of our present and former directors and officers, under which we are generally required to indemnify each such director or officer against expenses, including attorney's fees, judgments, fines and settlements, arising from actions such as the lawsuits described (subject to certain exceptions, as described in the indemnification agreements)." TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Restraints Trade of ACTOS Meds, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Sales Company, LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-03278-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2015), arises out of the alleged anticompetitive scheme by the Defendant and several of its ostensible generic competitors to allocate, and delay competition in the market for pioglitazone hydrochloride tablets (sold under the brand name ACTOS) and the fixed dose combination product containing both pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin (sold under the brand name ACTOp/us met). Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. is a Japanese pharmaceutical company with US headquarters located at 767 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017. The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Nalven, Esq. Thomas Matthew Sobol, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Main Street, 4th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: davidn@hbsslaw.com tom@hbsslaw.com TCP INTERNATIONAL: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over 2014 IPO --------------------------------------------------------------- On March 27, 2015, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against TCP International Holdings Ltd. and certain of its executives and directors and each of the investment banks that acted as underwriters in connection with TCPI's June 26, 2014 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The class action, filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, alleges that TCPI's Registration Statement contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed. The Complaint alleges that: (1) the Company misrepresented that certain of its products had received important industry certifications, when they in fact had not been tested and did not meet the certification criteria; (2) the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Ellis Yan, exerted undue influence and prevented the Company's internal controls and processes from functioning properly; and (3) the Company regularly disregarded its own internal policies and procedures. On February 26, 2015, Laura Hauser, TCPI's General Counsel, Secretary, and Chief Compliance Officer, filed a lawsuit against TCPI, its subsidiary, Technical Consumer Products Inc., and Yan. In her lawsuit, Hauser detailed several specific situations where she alleged TCPI and Yan violated the Company's own internal policies, as well as federal and state law. On this news, the Company's shares fell sharply, closing at just $2.74 on February 27, 2015, down $3.67 from its previous closing price, representing a one day drop of over 57%. What You Can Do If you are a TCPI shareholder and you wish to discuss this action, or have questions about this notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney Joseph Halloran at (646) 582-0121 or via email at jhalloran@scott-scott.com About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide. TELOMERASE ACTIVATION: Class Cert. Bid Denial in Egan Case Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, on April 28, 2015, entered an opinion in the case captioned BRIAN T. EGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TELOMERASE ACTIVATION SCIENCES, INC., ET AL., Defendants- Respondents, 652533/12, 14967, 14966. 2015 NY Slip Op 03484. The Supreme Court, New York County previously entered on September 17, 2014, an order which, upon reargument, denied on the merits plaintiffs' motion for class certification. According to the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division's opinon, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Y3HHJUfrom Leagle.com, in this action asserting claims under General Business Law Section 349, plaintiffs failed to make the required showing for class certification under CPLR 901. In order to state a claim under section 349, the transactions at issue must have occurred in New York. Because plaintiffs failed to show that any other putative class members made the relevant transactions in New York, they failed to meet the numerosity requirement for class certification. Plaintiffs also failed to show that common issues would predominate, because they could not point to any specific advertisement or public pronouncement by defendants seen by all putative class members. Nor are the claims of the individual plaintiffs typical of those of the putative class. Plaintiff Egan never purchased the product, but ingested it at work while employed by defendants. Plaintiff Murray never saw any statement by defendant, but simply purchased a bottle of the product upon the recommendation of a friend. Moreover, the individual plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the proposed class. Egan previously sued defendants for their alleged discrimination, and he is subject to a defamation counterclaim in this action. Murray appears to be involved in this action only because Egan is his friend. This raises questions as to whether they would pursue their own agenda, contrary to the interests of the class. There is no basis to conclude that a class action is a superior method of proceeding, given that none of the other prerequisites under CPLR 901 have been satisfied. Nor is it necessary to consider the factors set forth in CPLR 902 or the viability of plaintiffs' claims. Blau Leonard Law Group, LLC, Huntington (Steven Bennett Blau -- sbblaw@msn.com -- of counsel), for appellants. Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Anthony F. DeStefano -- adestefano@mlnappeals.com -- of counsel), for respondents. TEXAS BRINE: Sinkhole Settlement Recipients Raise Concerns ---------------------------------------------------------- David J. Mitchell, writing for The Advocate, reports that a former Bayou Corne resident says he and some of his former neighbors who were plaintiffs in a federal class-action lawsuit over the Assumption Parish sinkhole were manipulated by their attorneys and the special master overseeing the case. Michael Schaff, 65, now of Pierre Part, wrote U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey earlier in March about those concerns and asked for a private meeting. "What we wish to discuss with you is the way we were mistreated and manipulated by Class (Counsel) and the Special Master," Mr. Schaff wrote to the judge in New Orleans. Mr. Schaff told Judge Zainey he was asked by "several former members of our community" to seek the meeting and "gain some closure in our lives on this horrific event." Judge Zainey granted them a hearing on April 8 but will hold it in public. He is requiring attendance by all lawyers on the plaintiffs' steering committee, as well as the special master. Texas Brine representatives and all class members also were invited. Michael Schaff correspondence to U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey In the letter, Mr. Schaff told Judge Zainey he and five other former residents of Bayou Corne or nearby Grand Bayou would attend the meeting. Mr. Schaff declined to elaborate on his concerns in an interview. Larry Centola III, one of the class counsel lawyers, said the attorneys are ready to clear up any misconceptions at the public hearing. Mr. Schaff and the other plaintiffs sued Texas Brine Co. over the formation of the sinkhole, which appeared in a nearby swamp around Aug. 3, 2012. The plaintiffs alleged a Texas Brine salt dome cavern broke open and sparked the sinkhole's formation and the release of dangerous methane gas, which, state officials say, still threatens the area. The suit was settled in April 2014 right before it was headed to six bellwether damages trials. Texas Brine and its insurers agreed to the $48.1 million lump-sum award to buy out residents from their homes, pay them other damages for pain and suffering, and pay attorney fees and costs. Mr. Schaff's letter comes after the buyout process has ended -- checks went out late last year and in January -- and Judge Zainey is now being asked by the plaintiffs' attorneys to approve how their fees should be split and to certify payment of upfront costs. Judge Zainey already agreed earlier in March that the attorneys will receive a 25 percent cut of the $48.1 million settlement. Texas Brine officials, who declined comment, have not raised objections to the fees and costs with the court, but a longtime critic of Louisiana's civil courts, and in particular of trial lawyers, claims the $12.3 million in fees and costs are out of line. That critic also claims a conflict of interest exists between at least one of the class counsel lawyers and the special master. The master has played a key role in recommending how the attorney's fees are divvied up and establishing the plaintiffs' damages. Melissa Landry, executive director of the nonprofit Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch, charged that the $12 million in fees are unreasonable and work out to $1,300 per hour based on the approximately 8,900 hours that the attorneys said they spent on the case. "I think it's excessive and particularly offensive since it comes at the expense of individuals who lost their homes," Ms. Landry said. Mr. Centola said that under the law, the court must consider a variety of issues in setting attorneys' fees, known as Johnson factors, not just hours. "There are rumors and misinformation that is being put out by special interests with an ulterior motive," he said. Mr. Centola added that the 25 percent fee is far lower than what several clients who joined the class action had originally agreed to pay when they first hired private lawyers. He said class counsel later agreed attorneys' fees would be set at the lower 25 percent share of the settlement for all 16 law firms involved and delivered an unusually quick result. "That is unheard of," Mr. Centola said. "Over $30 million in the hands of clients within 21/2 years of the date of the incident -- it just doesn't happen." Some outside legal experts have said the 25 percent attorneys' fees are reasonable for the size, complexity and risk of the sinkhole litigation, noting that fees in other cases of that type can run 33 percent or more. Mr. Landry said the speed with which the case was finished suggested the case was not as complex or risky as the attorneys say. But the case is not completely resolved. A stack of lawsuits and unresolved claims remain over the sinkhole from large landowners, pipeline companies, state government and more than 40 residents and businesses that opted out or were excluded from the residents' class action. Mr. Centola noted that the class-action clients were notified more than a year ago that the attorneys would be seeking 25 percent of the settlement in fees. Earlier in the case, Judge Zainey set aside 28 percent of the settlement for possible fees and costs. While 25 percent ended up going toward fees, the remaining 3 percentage points of the set- aside -- $1.4 million -- will cover costs, Mr. Centola said. The class counsel is requesting $291,566 in common benefit costs for the litigation. Mr. Centola said the special master's hourly fee will come out of the 3 percent as well and whatever is left will be distributed back to the clients. Separately, Landry has charged that plaintiffs' attorney Calvin Fayard Jr., a prominent trial lawyer in Louisiana, is the second cousin of special master A. Shelby Easterly III. Mr. Landry also pointed to 2005 litigation in which Easterly represented Mr. Fayard and his law firm. "I certainly think the fact that they had a pre-existing relationship at the very least creates a perception of a conflict of interest and at the very worst is something much more than that," Mr. Landry said. In an email and court papers, Messrs. Fayard and Easterly disputed any conflict existed but did not dispute that they are distantly related. Mr. Fayard noted that Easterly does not represent him, anyone in his firm, other class counsel firms or anyone in those firms. "Under the federal rules that govern the appointment of special masters, we maintain that legal representation which occurred before an appointment -- in years-old matters not related to the current litigation -- does not create a conflict of interest," Mr. Fayard wrote in the email. Mr. Easterly, who is a member of the Academy of Court Appointed Special Masters, filed a disclosure in the class-action on March 27 saying he is not aware of any conflict in the case but that he represented Mr. Fayard and his law partner in a civil matter that ended nine years ago. Mr. Easterly also has acted as their notary and possibly they for him. Under federal rules of civil procedure, special masters fall under requirements that apply to judges for disqualification. N. Gregory Smith, an LSU Law School ethics professor, said the law says a judge shall disqualify himself when "his impartiality might be reasonably be questioned." Mr. Smith added the law notes specific instances in which judges must disqualify themselves. One happens when judges or their spouses are related to an attorney or litigant within the third degree. Mr. Smith said a separate code of conduct for federal judges does not include second cousins as relations within the third degree. TOLEDO, OH: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over 2006 Flooding ----------------------------------------------------------- Tom Henry, writing for The Blade, reports that a class-action lawsuit that two residents of the Shantee Creek District filed against the city of Toledo seven years ago over flooding from a massive 2006 downpour has been dismissed by Judge Gary G. Cook of Lucas County Common Pleas Court. The judge dismissed remaining claims by residents Kelly Morelli and Bonnie Kalka, who lived on West Crawford Avenue when the case was filed in 2008. Efforts to contact them by phone were unsuccessful; their attorney, Phillip Bazzo of Troy, Mich., said they were forced to relocate because of the flooding. The case had 172 plaintiffs, but some of them dismissed their claims in 2011, according to Judge Cook's 30-page ruling. The filing centered around a series of storms that flooded Crawford and other streets in West Toledo and South Toledo between June 21 and July 12, 2006. Toledo was in the midst of a $3 million effort to widen Shantee Creek then. Residents complained of raw sewage causing harmful bacteria and mold, claiming the city's failure to capture the rainwater before it entered their homes amounted to a government taking of their property. But Judge Cook said in his ruling that evidence from the plaintiffs "demonstrates the city's efforts in preventing a repeat of the flooding" and said it "is clear that plaintiffs present no genuine issues of fact regarding their claim of a government taking." Adam Loukx, Toledo law director, said the city considered the flooding an "act of God," not a breakdown in its stormwater management. "We believe it was a correct decision," Mr. Loukx said. Mr. Bazzo said the plaintiffs are reviewing their options. The attorney told The Blade several times on March 30 that he still believes the city is guilty of operational negligence because it had ample opportunity to curb flooding by stacking sandbags at the Jackman Road culvert near Bowman Park, but didn't. "That is an operational problem, not a design problem," Mr. Bazzo said. "They could have operationally stopped the flow with sandbags. They didn't do it." Millions of dollars of damage resulted to many area homes, some of which became uninhabitable because of high water, mold, and wall collapses, Mr. Bazzo said. "We can say there was massive damage of property." TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Panes" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Panes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. 3:15-cv-01316-N (N.D. Tex., April 28, 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. Trinity Industries, Inc. is a diversified industrial company that owns a variety of businesses providing products and services to the energy, transportation, chemical, and construction sectors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. THE KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com csadler@glancylaw.com TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces White Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- The White Family Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. 3:15-cv-01304-K (N.D. Tex., April 27, 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. Trinity Industries, Inc. manufactures transportation, construction, and industrial products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sammy Ford IV, Esq. ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND 800 Commerce Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 226-5157 Facsimile: (713) 225-0827 E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com - and - 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 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross One N LaSalle St, Suite 2225 Chicago, IL 60602-3908 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 TYSON FOODS: Class Action Obtains Preliminary Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew McIntyre, writing for Law360, reports that a Kansas federal judge on March 30 gave preliminary approval of a proposed more than $730,000 settlement of a years-long employment class-action suit that has pitted current and former Tyson Foods Inc. workers against the company. U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten on March 30 gave initial approval of the proposed $730,548.35 settlement, roughly half of which would be paid by Tyson Foods to cover attorney's fees, according to court filings earlier in March. UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Suit vs. Social Security Admin. ----------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in HENRY GRAJALES, JR. v. CAROLYN COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, CIVIL NO. - JFM-14-3822, (D. Md.) seeks to have the Commissioner of Social Security change his name on Social Security records. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. District Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled that the motion will be granted saying, "At the outset, it is to be noted that initially it appeared that plaintiff was seeking to institute a class action. However, in his responsive memorandum, that claim has been abandoned. In accordance with statute, regulations, and internal policy, the Social Security Administration requires that in order for a name change to be effected on the records of Social Security, it is necessary that a person have his person legally changed pursuant to state law. Maryland law does provide a means for plaintiff to change his name. Under these circumstances it would be inappropriate for the Social Security Administration to use a name in its records that does not comply with state law and its own governing statute, regulations, and policy." A copy of the court's April 9, 2015 memorandum is available at http://bit.ly/1JCJjmCfrom Leagle.com. Henry GraJales, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro Se. Carolyn W. Colvin, Defendant, represented by Thomas H Barnard, Office of the US Attorney. VAN'S INT'L: "Frei" Suit Transferred From Colorado to California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Frei v. Van's International Foods, Case No. 1:15-cv-00209, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01723- JCS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Larry Ottele, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1700 Lincoln Street Wells Fargo Center, Suite 4700 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 749-7200 Facsimile: (303) 749-7272 E-mail: chris.ottele@huschblackwell.com VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Faces "Cummins" Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the Company's current officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 28, 2013 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain funds subadvised by F-Squared Investments. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. WAFFLE & WOLF: "Tococh" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Ramiro Coj Tococh, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Waffle & Wolf, Daniel Richardson and Arman Sen, Case No. 1:15-cv-02377 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Waffle & Wolf is a New York corporation with a principal place of business at 413 Graham Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Waffle owns and operates a restaurant in Brooklyn. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Owens" Suit Over Product Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------ Judy Owens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01870 (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's Spring Valley herbal supplements: Gingko Biloba, St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Garlic, Echinacea, and Saw Palmetto, did not contain the promised herbs or plant materials indicated on the packaging but rather contain certain contaminants such as allium, pine, wheat/grass, rice mustard, citrus, dracaena (houseplant), and cassava (tropical tree root). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 702 SW 8th Street, Bentonville, AR 72716. Wal-Mart is a multinational corporation and one of the largest retailers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack W. Lee, Esq. Aron Liang, Esq. Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq. MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-9000 Facsimile: (415) 398-3887 E-mail: jlee@MinamiTamaki.com aliang@MinamiTamaki.com seant@MinamiTamaki.com YOUKU TUDOU: May 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Morgan & Morgan on March 30 disclosed that class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Youku Tudou, Inc. between February 27, 2014 and March 19, 2015, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers. If you purchased Youku stock during the Class Period, you may, no later than May 26, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you want more information about the Youku Tudou Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com The complaints allege that throughout the Class Period, Youku and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing public. Specifically, the complaints allege that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company recognized revenue improperly for multi-element arrangements; (2) the Company improperly recorded certain nonmonetary transactions to exchange online broadcasting rights of video content with other online video broadcasting companies at the carrying values of the broadcasting rights transacted, instead of the properly-accounted fair value; (3) the Company improperly accounted for its licensed content as long-lived assets; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. According to the complaints, on March 19, 2015, the Company announced fourth quarter results and reported a net loss of $51.3 million, compared to $4 million in the same quarter of 2013. In addition, Youku disclosed that the SEC is investigating certain aspects of the Company's past accounting practices relating to revenue recognition for multi-part deals, accounting of "non- monetary exchanges of licensed content" and the classification of licensed content as long-lived assets. The Company also announced that it is now "evaluating the impact to its 2014 and historical financial statements." Following this news, Youku's stock price dropped nearly 11%, from a March 19, 2015 closing price of $15.15 per share, to close at $13.50 on March 20, 2015. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. * Accounting Fraud Class Actions Up 47% in 2014, Cornerstone Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Rapoport, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that the number of securities class-action lawsuits alleging accounting fraud jumped 47% in 2014, even as the overall number of securities class actions was little changed, according to a new report from Cornerstone Research issued on March 31. The increase stems partly from a similar jump in accounting-fraud enforcement cases brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Cornerstone said, as the SEC renewed its focus on financial-reporting and disclosure issues in 2014 after several years of focusing on other matters. The numbers compiled by Cornerstone, a financial-consulting firm that focuses on litigation and regulatory proceedings, show 69 new securities cases with accounting allegations filed in 2014, up from 47 in 2013. There were 170 total new securities class action filings in 2014, up only slightly from 166 the previous year. The jump in accounting lawsuits mirrors a 46% increase in SEC accounting-fraud enforcement actions in the fiscal year that ended last Sept. 30, the first year-over-year increase in SEC accounting cases since 2007. The agency has said publicly over the past year or two that it's paying more attention to accounting fraud, after several years of concentrating on misconduct related to the financial crisis. The accounting class-action increase "appears to be, at least in part, a result of the SEC's heightened focus on accounting-related fraud," Elaine Harwood, head of Cornerstone's accounting practice, said in a statement. More than one in four of the new accounting cases referred to an SEC inquiry or action, the highest level since Cornerstone began tracking that question in 2010. Accounting lawsuit filings involving restatements of financial statements hit a seven--year high, at 42% of accounting cases. Cornerstone noted that the severity of stock-price drops surrounding restatements also increased in 2014, potentially encouraging investors to file such cases. Of the securities class-action settlements reached during the year, 70% were in cases involving accounting allegations, according to the report, the highest level since 2010. * Investors Warned About Publicly Traded Marijuana Companies ------------------------------------------------------------ Hilary Bricken, writing for Above The Law, reports that in Spring 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission suspended trading in several publicly traded marijuana companies, including FusionPharm, Inc., Cannabusiness Group, Inc., GrowLife, Inc., Advanced Cannabis Solutions, Inc., and Petrotech Oil and Gas, Inc. In addition to those suspensions, the SEC issued a warning regarding investments in publicly traded marijuana-related stocks. Though Above The Law has no opinions about these specific marijuana companies, it does have an opinion regarding publicly traded pot stocks in general: BE CAREFUL. According to the SEC, it "suspended trading in these companies because of questions regarding the accuracy of publicly-available information about these companies' operations. For two of the companies, the trading suspensions were also based on potential illegal activity (unlawful sales of securities and market manipulation)." The SEC actually filed federal charges for market manipulation against four of GrowLife's promoters and a securities fraud class action lawsuit by GrowLife investors followed soon thereafter. Whenever there is a change in laws like what we have seen in Washington and Colorado (and to a lesser extent in Oregon and Alaska), the vultures begin to circle and the stock market is no exception. The Feds are having a field day targeting marijuana companies because these companies have shown a predilection for making incomplete or misleading disclosures. As early as August 2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority began commenting on marijuana penny stock pump and dump scams and "instances of firms being run by people with criminal records." Despite the fact that the bubble has already arguably burst for marijuana stocks, there are still many publicly traded "pot companies" trading at frothy levels even though they are generally not well positioned to compete in the marijuana marketplace. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that for every one publicly traded marijuana stock, there are ten far more advanced and economically sound privately held companies. The Seattle Times just yesterday wrote an interesting story about Diego Pellicer, a Seattle-based, over-the-counter pot company that just issued its first regulatory filing. The Seattle Times put it best: Too many publicly traded companies are more focused on pumping their share prices up than on competing in the marijuana marketplace, and the herd mentality of investors seems to encourage this. The basic logic is that marijuana is booming so therefore any and all marijuana businesses must be booming as well. Investors that aren't very familiar with the industry will buy shares in the most visible publicly traded companies because that is the only relatively easy way to cash in on the boom. Not a good idea. Just because a company is listed over-the-counter does not necessarily mean that it is up to no good. But companies trading over-the-counter are not subject to the strict reporting and transparency requirements of stock exchanges like NASDAQ or NYSE, and there is no denying that the over-the-counter market has been a breeding ground for fraudulent pot companies. * Labor Depreciation Class Actions Spread Across US --------------------------------------------------- Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that class action litigation is spreading across the country involving the application of depreciation in calculating the actual cash value of property damage under homeowners and commercial property insurance policies. The Issue: For decades, insurers have been using replacement-cost- less-depreciation as a method (where appropriate) for calculating actual cash value. That method typically takes the entire estimated replacement cost of an item of property (which includes the materials, labor and sometimes other components) and depreciates that item based on factors such as age, condition and obsolescence. Software programs such as Xactimate are often used in performing these calculations. Recently, putative class action cases in various jurisdictions have asserted that depreciation should be applied only to the materials component of the replacement cost, and not to the labor component. For example, if the cost of replacing a roof is $10,000 and $7,000 of that is labor and $3,000 is materials, then only the $3,000 should be depreciated, according to these plaintiffs. Here is the status of the litigation in the jurisdictions where the issue is being litigated. There are also some jurisdictions where insurance department regulations have addressed the issue, such as California and Montana. Arkansas: In 2013, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that "the cost of labor may not be depreciated when determining the actual cash value of a covered loss under an indemnity insurance policy that does not define the term 'actual cash value.'" Adams v. Cameron Mutual Insurance Company, 430 S.W.3d 675, 679 (Ark. 2013). The court concluded that the term "actual cash value" was ambiguous, and that labor was not "logically depreciable" because it does not wear out over time. The court relied on a dissenting opinion in Redcorn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 55 P.3d 1017 (Okla. 2002). In that case, the majority of the Oklahoma Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the insurer's position, explaining that under the "broad evidence rule" applied in Oklahoma and many other jurisdictions in determining actual cash value, it was appropriate to consider all relevant evidence in determining actual cash value. And the actual cash value of a roof, for example, would take into account the entire value of the roof as a completed product, not just the materials component thereof. This ruling led to numerous class actions being filed in Arkansas on this issue, some of which have resulted in class action settlements. There has been no ruling on class certification in Arkansas to my knowledge. Kentucky: In in Bailey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Civ. A. No. 14-53-HRW, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37568 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 25, 2015), another putative class action on this issue, a Kentucky federal district court denied State Farm's motion to dismiss. The court noted that a Kentucky regulation provides for actual cash value to be calculated as replacement cost less depreciation, but does not address how depreciation should be calculated. Id. at *11-12 (citing 806 KAR 12:095(9)). The court cited Kentucky law applying the principle of indemnity under which an insured receiving actual cash value payment should be "put back in the position he or she enjoyed before the loss," without a benefit or detriment. Id. at *13. While the Oklahoma Supreme Court majority found that this principle supported the insurer's position because depreciating only a portion of the value of an item would not yield its true actual cash value, the Kentucky federal district court disagreed. It wrote that "labor is not subject to wear and tear" because, for example, "the cost of labor to install a new garage would be the same as installing a garage with 10 year old materials." Id. at *14-15. But is that the right question to ask? If the garage was for sale the day before the loss occurred, would a reasonable buyer pay the depreciated value of the garage in its entirety, or the depreciated value of the materials together with full labor costs? It would obviously be the former. The Kentucky court, however, agreed with the Arkansas Supreme Court decision, and the dissent in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Minnesota: In Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Civ. No. 14-2798 (RHK/FLN) (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2015), a Minnesota federal district court recently decided to certify to the Minnesota Supreme Court the following question: "May an insurer, in determining the 'actual cash value' of a covered loss under an indemnity insurance policy, depreciate the costs of labor when the term 'actual cash value' is not defined in the policy?" The court directed the parties to submit proposed statements of facts to accompany the certified question. Alabama: In Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company v. McCain, 2015 Ala. LEXIS 22 (Ala. Feb. 20, 2015), the Alabama Supreme Court recently reversed the certification of a class, on procedural grounds, in a case involving a labor depreciation issue. The insured alleged that it was improper to depreciate labor costs associated with the removal of damaged materials (some insurers do not apply depreciation to these costs), but apparently the insured did not challenge the depreciation of the labor costs associated with installing materials. The insurer's summary judgment motion was denied by the trial court, and a class was certified. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the certification of the class on procedural grounds. This was because the plaintiff, in a brief filed after the class certification hearing, sought to expand the scope of the class to include policyholders who had replacement cost policies, in addition to those who had actual cash value policies. The trial court had adopted this new class definition. The supreme court held that it was improper for the trial court to certify the class without giving the insurer the opportunity to oppose certification of this newly-framed class at a new evidentiary hearing. The Alabama Supreme Court did not address the merits of the issue presented or the merits of certification. So this decision is not likely to have impact elsewhere. Missouri: There are several putative class actions where the labor depreciation issue has been raised in Missouri, but no ruling on the merits or class certification has been reached yet: Riggins v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., Case No.: 2:14-cv-04171-NKL (W.D. Mo.); McLaughlin v. Fire Ins. Exch., No. 1316-CV11140 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cty.); Bellamy v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co., No. 1516- CV06346 (Mo. Circ. Ct., Jackson Cty.). * Oklahoma Oil Cos. Sued Over Increased Earthquake Activity ----------------------------------------------------------- Joleen Chaney, writing for News9, reports that a class action lawsuit took aim at Oklahoma oil companies. The suit specifically blamed wastewater injection wells for increased earthquake activity. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission is the only state agency that regulates the oil and gas industry. "Everybody in Oklahoma admits that the oil and gas industry is the lifeblood of our state," Attorney Billy Coyle said. "No one wants to see that go away. We also don't want our homes to come crumbling down." However, a class action lawsuit filed in Lincoln County claimed earthquakes caused by operations of wastewater disposal or injection wells damaged homes. It was filed on behalf of homeowners living in Lincoln, Payne, Logan, Oklahoma Cleveland, Pottawatomie, Seminole, Okfuskee and Creek Counties. "All residents that have had a direct impact that in other words the epicenter of this earthquake was where damage was caused," Coyle said. The corporation commission just issued a letter to well operators. It said disposal well operators in areas of interest that inject into the Arbuckle Formation have until April 18 to prove that the disposal well is not disposing below the formation. The Arbuckle Formation is the states deepest formation, and the areas of interest have had at least two quakes. That letter goes on to state, "There is a broad agreement among seismologists that disposal below the Arbuckle poses a potential risk of causing earthquakes." "If they are admitting or if they are coming to the conclusion that these disposal wells are responsible for the earthquakes, that would have a major impact on if they're going to shut down a couple of then," Mr. Coyle said. "Then I think all Oklahoma citizens out there should be asking the question why only shut down a couple? Why not shut down all of them until we figure out if this is really causing the earthquakes?" This applies to 347 of the approximately 900 Arbuckle disposal wells in Oklahoma. The corporation commission has taken action on a number of wells as part of a risk management system supported by research. They say their approach is on risk management and not causes. ********* 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 * * *