/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150526.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 104
Headlines
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Castro" Suit Remanded to Cal. Superior Court
ACCELETRONICS SERVICES: "Zankl" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
AEGON N.V.: Named in Purported Class Actions Over 401(k)
ALCO VENDING: Wins Summary Judgment in Siding and Insulation Case
AMERIGROUP KANSAS: Fagan Firm's Davis Leads KanCare Class Action
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Pension Plan Ordered to Provide Enhanced Benefits
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Decision on Motion for Judgment Still Pending
ARS NATIONAL: Class in "Dorrance" Suit to Get More Payment
ASPEN WAY: Laptop Spyware Class Action Reinstated
ASPLUNDH TREE: Ex-Worker Files Class Action Over Contract Breach
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Faces "Berkman" Suit Over Company Sale
AUDIOEYE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AUTOZONE INC: Discovery Requests Denied in "Ellison" Suit
AXA ADVISORS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Marcus" Suit
BAKER HUGHES: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
BANK OF BOSTON: Case Against EMC Mortgage Still Active
BELL CANADA: Faces $750MM Suit Over Relevant Ads Program
BG RETAIL: Dist. Ct. Gives Initial Approval to Davis Suit Deal
BIG RUN COAL: Locals File Suit to Combat Landfill Nuisances
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over Improper Sales Tax Collection
BLUE CROSS: Court Narrows Claims in Alma Products Suit
BOSTON TRANSIT: Faces "Rodriguez" Class Suit Over Winter Failures
BRE SELECT: Continues to Defend Against Apple REITs Litigation
BUFFALO CITY, NY: Educ Board Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
BURLINGTON COUNTY: Strip Searches Violate New Jersey Law
BURNETT WELDING: Faces "Beck" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
C & S WIRELINE: Faces "Cormier" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Unjust Enrichment Claim Tossed
CAFE PEOPLE: Faces "Barreno" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAFE VICO: Faces "Vicente" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CENTURYLINK INC: Dist. Court Adopts Mag. Judge's Recommendation
CHEMICAL AND MINING: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
CHRISTMAS ISLAND: Supreme Court Freeze Demolition Order
CLINTON HILL: Faces "Cadet" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COOPER VISION: Faces "Marby" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COST PLUS: Recalls Twist Swivel Stools Due to Fall Hazard
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Defendants Have Yet to Answer Complaints
DAIRY FARMERS: Court Rejects Settlement in "Allen" Case
DANIEL T. KOPEC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces Andrew "Speese" Shareholder Action
DELTA AIRLINES: Avoids Liability to US Fliers Delayed From Europe
DHL EXPRESS: Car Dealer's Suit Over Jet Fuel Surcharge Nixed
DIVORCE SOURCE: Facing Class Action Filed by Former Customer
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: "Nitsch" Suit Claims Must Be Arbitrated
ENOVA INT'L: Court Hass Yet to Rule on Summary Judgment Bid
EXPEDIA: May Face Class Action Over Lousy Customer Service
FLORIDA: Detainees Fail to Sway Court in Suit vs. Sheriff
FOODS OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Fails to Pay OT, "Ocasio" Suit Claims
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
FRESH MARKET: Faces FLSA Lawsuit in Connecticut Court
G & E FLORIDA: "Almazan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GENVEC INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss in "Garnitschnig" Action
GENVEC INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in "Galitsis" Held
GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Orders Records in Probiotic False Ad Suit
GLOBAL TEL: Accused of Defrauding Customers on Inmate Calls
GOLD RESOURCE: Tenth Circuit Affirmed District Court's Decision
GOOGLE INC: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Svenson" Suit
GOOGLE INC: Settlement in Referrer Header Privacy Case Okayed
HAMMOUD & SAMAHA: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HAMN EGGERY: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HARRIS FARMS: Gets More Time to File Settlement Approval Motion
HUNTER'S MANUFACTURING: Recalls Crossbows Due to Injury Hazard
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls PATRULL Safety Gates
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of 2nd Amended Complaint
IRADIMED CORPORATION: "Lam" Civil Action in Early Stages
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Dead Sea Works Responds to Class Action
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Subsidiaries Named as Party to Class Suit
J. C. PENNEY: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss "Marcus" Case Completed
J. C. PENNEY: Marcus Plaintiff Opposes Appointment in "Johnson"
J. C. PENNEY: Filed Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action
J. C. PENNEY: Ill. Court Has Yet to Rule on Class Certification
KIND LLC: Faces "O'Brien" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
KRAFT FOODS: Faces "Meyer" Suit in E.D. Va. Over Heinz Deal
KRAFT FOODS: Faces "Wallace" Suit Over Wheat Price Manipulation
KRAFT FOODS: Wheat Price Manipulation Hurt Traders, Suit Says
LA-Z-BOY: Recalls Power Reclining Furniture Due to Fall Hazard
LIFE TIME: Block & Leviton Sues Over Securities Law Violations
LISA STEED: Judge Rejects Class Action Alleging Bogus DUI Stops
LVNV FUNDING: 6th Cir. Reverses "Michalak" Case Dismissal Order
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Time to Respond to Hayes Case Adjourned
MASTERCARD INC: Lawyers Object to Settlement With Target
MICHAELS STORES: Job Seeker Drops Out of FCRA Suit
MONTEREY COUNTY JAIL: Judge Grants Injunction in Class Suit
MORGAN & MORGAN: Faces "Rosado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MOUNTAIN SAFETY: Recalls Avalanche Snow Shovels
NABORS RED: Del. Supreme Court Overturned Chancery Court Judgment
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Consolidates Benavente and Zoerb Cases
NATURAL & TASTY: Faces "Slavinski" Suit for Product Mislabeling
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT: Sued Over Unlawful Access-A-Ride Policies
OCWEN LOAN: Feeding Bad Info to Credit Agencies, 9th Cir. Told
ONEIDA TRIBE: Hit With Class Action Over Card Receipts
OPON INTERNATIONAL: 10th Cir. Narrows Claims in "Nakkhumpun" Suit
PARADISE SHOWGIRLS: 249 strippers Sue Club for 50% of Tips
PC DRILLING: Faces "Self" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PFIZER INC: July 30 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement
PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR: Protective Order Entered in "Covington" Case
PILOT FLYING J: Employee Files Motion to Avoid Testimony
PULSE ELECTRONICS: Faces Odinotski and Solak Class Action
QUICKSILVER INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
RAILEY'S: Pregnant Women Files Suit Over Discrimination
ROCKY BRANDS: Recalls Hunting Boots
RUAN INC: Settles "Williams" Class Action for $10.5 Million
SAFEGUARD SERVICES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Cardenas" Suit Says
SANSOOGAPSAN II: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SCHYLLING INC: Recalls Police Toy Vehicles Due to Choking Hazard
SEA WORLD: 'Tell Truth', Animal Rights Group Demands
SIBANYE GOLD: Oct. 12 and 19 Hearings in Class Action
SILVER CREEK: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SINCLAIR OIL: Ill. Appeals Court Remands Allianz Coverage Suit
SMARTHEAT INC: Paid Plaintiffs US$120,000 to Settle Class Action
ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Parking Ticket Policy
SYNERON MEDICAL: Second Evidentiary Hearing Scheduled for June
TARGET CORP: Nov. 10 Final Hearing on Data Breach Settlement
TRANSURBAN: Faces Class Action Over Hot Lane Fines
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Ghazi" Suit for Misclassifying Drivers
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Want PAGA Penalties in Tipping Suit
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Settles Digital Songs Royalties Suit for $11.5MM
US FOODS: Court Finalized Settlement in 2006 Pricing Litigation
VBI VACCINES: Contesting Shareholder Class Action
VIKING DRILLING: Faces "Haynes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VODAFONE: Outcome of ANZ Case to Affect Suit v. Telcos
WALGREEN CO: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand Order in "Goodman" Action
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class in Suit Over Energy Star Label Certified
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over TCE Contamination
WORLD WRESTLING: McCullough et al. Launch Class Action Lawsuit
YARGUS MANUFACTURING: Faces "Norton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
YELP INC: Bid for Reconsideration of Curry Case Dismissal Tossed
YOUKU TUDOU: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Application Due
ZEPOL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
* Cummings Manookian to File Suit Targeting Diamond Overgrading
*********
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Castro" Suit Remanded to Cal. Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Plaintiffs' motion
to remand the case captioned MARLEY CASTRO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, ET AL., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-
05359-YGR (N.D. Calif.).
The putative class action alleges that Defendants required their
janitorial employees to use personal cell phones for work-related
purposes without reimbursement. The case was initially filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.
Defendants removed the action to federal court. Plaintiffs filed
a motion to remand.
In an order dated April 2, 2015 which is available at
http://is.gd/l9PYy3from Leagle.com, the Court found that the
removal was improper because the relevant amount for
jurisdictional purposes at the time of removal fell below the $5
million threshold of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The
case was remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda.
Marley Castro, and Lucia Marmolejo, Plaintiffs, represented by
Mana Barari -- mbarari@ssrplaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas and Pyle,
Hunter Pyle -- hpyle@ssrplaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, Linda
Pham Lam, Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. & Todd F. Jackson,
Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker & Jackson, P.C..
ABM Industries Incorporated, ABM Janitorial Services, Inc., and
ABM Onsite Services - West, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Theane Evangelis Kapur -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Bradley Joseph Hamburger --
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com , Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP,
Katherine V.A. Smith - ksmith@gibsondunn.com , Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP & Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
ABM Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Theane Evangelis
Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
ABM Janitorial Services - Northern California Inc, Defendant,
represented by Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP.
ACCELETRONICS SERVICES: "Zankl" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Zankl, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Acceletronics Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04213
(N.D. Ill., May 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Acceletronics Services, Inc. is a linear accelerator supplier and
service provider.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terrence Buehler, Esq.
TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 372-2209
Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com
AEGON N.V.: Named in Purported Class Actions Over 401(k)
--------------------------------------------------------
Aegon N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that Aegon subsidiaries and other US
industry participants have been named in representative and
purported class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that
asset-based fees charged for investment products offered on 401(k)
platforms were higher than those generally available in the
market. In addition to services provided to third party plan
sponsors in connection with its pension recordkeeping services,
Aegon's primary US operating unit has been named as a defendant in
an action relating to allegedly excessive fees in connection with
the 401(k) plan provided to its own employees.
"Matters like these are being defended vigorously; however, at
this time, due to the nature and the type of claims, it is not
practicable for Aegon to quantify a range or maximum liability or
the timing of the financial impact, if any. There can be no
assurance that such claims may not have a material adverse effect
on Aegon's results of operations or financial position," the
Company said.
ALCO VENDING: Wins Summary Judgment in Siding and Insulation Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in THE SIDING AND INSULATION CO., Plaintiff, v. ALCO
VENDING, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:11 CV 01060, (N.D. Ohio)
filed this putative class action lawsuit alleging that the
defendant sent unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). The
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which were
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli
for a Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation advised that the defendant's motion for summary
judgment be granted and that the plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment be denied as moot.
In reaching her conclusion, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that she
found that the faxes at issue, which advertised the defendant
Alco's services, were actually sent by a third-party, Business to
Business Solutions ("B2B"). After reviewing an FCC ruling on the
issue and the relevant case law, the Magistrate Judge determined
that Alco could not be held liable as a "sender" of unsolicited
faxes under the TCPA simply because the faxes advertised Alco's
services. Instead, the Magistrate Judge concluded, the plaintiff
was required to prove that Alco was vicariously liable for B2B's
having sent the unsolicited faxes under common law agency
principles.
The Magistrate Judge went on to determine that the plaintiff's
complaint failed to state a plausible claim of vicarious liability
under theories of actual agency, apparent authority, and
ratification. Then, assuming in arguendo that the complaint had
stated a plausible agency claim, the Magistrate Judge determined
that there was insufficient evidence on the record by which a jury
could reasonably find for the plaintiff under any of those agency
theories. The Magistrate Judge accordingly recommended that
summary judgment be granted in favor of the defendant Alco.
The plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
recommended decision.
Finding the plaintiff's objections to be without merit and the
Report and Recommendation to be without error, District Judge
Lesley Wells accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. The
Report and Recommendation is accordingly adopted in its entirety,
and the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. The
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied as moot.
A copy of Judge Wells' April 22, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/Hnzl81from Leagle.com.
AMERIGROUP KANSAS: Fagan Firm's Davis Leads KanCare Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City Business Journal reports that Paul Davis, who
unsuccessfully challenged Sam Brownback for his office in the most
recent election for Kansas governor, has turned his attention back
to his law practice.
According to KCUR, the Lawrence attorney announced that he's
leading a class-action lawsuit against Amerigroup Kansas Inc., one
of the managed care companies participating in Kansas' Medicaid
program. His firm, Fagan Emert & Davis LLC, seeks to represent
the nearly 165,000 current and former Medicaid and CHIP recipients
who were affected by the massive data breach of Anthem Inc., the
nation's second-largest health insurance company.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Pension Plan Ordered to Provide Enhanced Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a district court has
ordered the Anheuser-Busch Companies Salaried Employees' Pension
Plan to provide the enhanced pension benefits to members of the
certified class.
On September 15, 2010, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV and several of
its related companies were sued in Federal Court for the Southern
District of Ohio in a lawsuit entitled Rusby Adams et al. v. AB
InBev, et al. This lawsuit was filed by four employees of Metal
Container Corporation's facilities in Columbus, Ohio, Gainesville,
Florida, and Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin that were divested on October
1, 2009. Similar to the Angevine lawsuit, these plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of participants of the Anheuser-Busch Companies
Salaried Employees' Pension Plan (the "Plan") who had been
employed by subsidiaries of Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC that had
been divested during the period of November 18, 2008 through
November 17, 2011.
"The plaintiffs also allege claims similar to the Angevine
lawsuit, namely, that by failing to provide plaintiffs with these
enhanced benefits, we breached our fiduciary duties under the U.S.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. We filed a Motion
to Dismiss and obtained dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty
claims in April 2011, leaving only the claims for benefits
remaining," the Company said.
On March 28, 2012, the Court certified that the case could proceed
as a class action comprised of former employees of the divested
Metal Container Corporation operations. On January 9, 2013, the
Court granted the Company's Motion for Judgment on the
Administrative Record. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on
February 5, 2013. On July 11, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the lower court and remanded the case for
judgment. On September 16, 2014, the Company's Motion for
Rehearing En Banc was denied. A Final Order and Judgment was then
entered by the district court on December 24, 2014, which ordered
the Plan to provide the enhanced pension benefits to members of
the certified class.
"We believe the total amount of the enhanced benefits is
approximately USD 8 million," the Company said.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Decision on Motion for Judgment Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is awaiting
the court's decision on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
On January 10, 2012, a class action complaint asserting claims
very similar to those asserted in the Angevine lawsuit was filed
in Federal Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, styled
Nancy Anderson et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan et
al. Unlike the Angevine case, however, the plaintiff in this
matter alleges complete exhaustion of all administrative remedies.
On March 11, 2013 the court consolidated the case with the
Knowlton case. A three-count consolidated complaint was filed on
April 19, 2013. On October 30, 2013, the court dismissed Counts II
and III, including the breach of fiduciary claims, but granted
plaintiff leave to amend. On November 19, 2013, the plaintiff
filed an amended Count III.
"We filed an Answer to amended Count III on 30 May 2014. On 16 May
2014, the Court granted the plaintiff's class certification motion
on Count I, which certified a class of divested employees of Busch
Entertainment Corporation," the Company said.
On October 10, 2012, another class action complaint was filed
against Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Anheuser-Busch Companies
Pension Plan, Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Appeals
Committee and the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan
Administrative Committee by Brian Knowlton and several other
former Busch Entertainment Corporation Employees. It was filed in
Federal Court in the Southern District of California, and was
amended on October 12, 2012. Like the other lawsuits, it claims
that the employees of any divested assets were entitled to
enhanced retirement benefits under section 19.11(f) of the Plan.
However, it specifically excluded the divested Metal Container
Corporation facilities that were included in the Adams class
action. On March 11, 2013 the court consolidated the case with the
Nancy Anderson case. A consolidated complaint was filed on April
19, 2013. On October 30, 2013, the court dismissed Counts II and
III, including the breach of fiduciary claims, but granted
plaintiff leave to amend. On November 19, 2013, the plaintiff
filed an amended Count III.
"We filed an Answer to amended Count III on 30 May 2014. On 16 May
2014, the Court granted the plaintiff's class certification motion
on Count I, which certified a class of divested employees of Busch
Entertainment Corporation. On 10 November 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on the decision
by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Adams case. We have
opposed the motion and are awaiting the court's decision," the
Company said.
ARS NATIONAL: Class in "Dorrance" Suit to Get More Payment
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Malachy E. Mannion issued an order in the case
captioned EDWARD DORRANCE, on behalf plaintiff and two classes,
Plaintiffs, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 3:12-2502, (M.D. Penn.), stating that upon
consideration of the parties' request for final approval of class
action settlement, and after notice and a final fairness hearing,
the court finally certifies the plaintiff class defined as:
All natural persons with Pennsylvania addresses who had interest
accruing on their accounts and to whom ARS sent one or more
letters between December 12, 2011 to November 30, 2012.
The Settlement Agreement preliminarily approved by the court on
September 26, 2014, and again approved by the court upon the
parties' modification on January 6, 2015, is approved as being,
fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interest of the
plaintiff class members, with these exceptions agreed upon at the
final fairness hearing:
(a) counsels' fees and costs are reduced to a total of $26,000;
(b) the class representative's fees are reduced to $1,750; and
(c) the class members' recovery fund is increased to $37,250.
(3) The instant action is dismissed with prejudice.
A copy of Judge Mannion's May 11, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/VfJuvkfrom Leagle.com.
Edward Dorrance, Plaintiff, represented by Carlo Sabatini,
Sabatini Law Firm, LLC, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Daniel A. Edelman -- courtecl@edcombs.com
-- Edelman, combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Thomas E. Soule,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC.
ARS National Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew K.
Stutzman -- astutzman@stradley.com -- Stradley, Ronon, Stevens &
Young, Eric M. Hurwitz -- ehurwitz@stradley.com --
Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP & William T. Mandia --
wmandia@stradley.com -- Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP.
ASPEN WAY: Laptop Spyware Class Action Reinstated
-------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
U.S. appeals court has reinstated a putative class action lawsuit
filed by a couple who said their rented computer had spyware that
took pictures of them and the websites they visited, violating
their privacy.
Two of the defendants in the case, Billings, Montana-based Aspen
Way Enterprises Inc. and Philadelphia-based DesignerWare L.L.C.,
reached a settlement over the issue of spyware with the Federal
Trade Commission in 2013.
Crystal and Brian Byrd filed suit against Atlanta-based Aaron's
Inc., franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises and DesignerWare, among
others, charging violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986, according the ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in Crystal Byrd; Brian Byrd v.
Aaron's Inc.; Aspen Way Enterprises Inc. et al.
Ms. Byrd had entered into a lease agreement to rent a laptop
computer from Aspen Way in July 2010, according to the ruling.
Although Ms. Byrd said she had made full payments under the lease
agreement, in December 2010 an Aspen Way agent came to the Byrds'
home to repossess the laptop on the grounds lease payments had not
been made, according to the ruling.
The agent allegedly showed a screenshot of a poker website Mr.
Byrd had visited, as well as picture taken of him by the laptop's
camera as he played. "The Byrds were troubled and surprised by
what they considered a significant and unauthorized invasion of
their privacy," said the ruling.
Aspen Way had obtained the picture and screen shot through
DesignerWare spyware that had an optional function that could
collect screenshots, keystrokes and webcam images from the
computer and its users, according to the ruling.
The Byrds said between November 2010 and December 2010, this
spyware secretly accessed their laptop 347 times on 11 different
dates. They also said a total of 895 computers across the country
were similarly surveyed.
The Byrds filed suit in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, which
dismissed the case on grounds including that the proposed classes
were overly broad.
A three-judge panel unanimously reinstated the case on several
legal grounds, including that an overly broad class was not
ascertainable.
"The district court erred both in relying on an errant conclusion
of law and improperly applying law to fact," said the appeals
court, in reversing the lower court ruling and remanding the case
for further proceedings.
ASPLUNDH TREE: Ex-Worker Files Class Action Over Contract Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that an
Ohio County worker filed a class action lawsuit against a
landscaping firm for alleged breach of a 2014 agreement.
Michael Bellew brought a complaint against Asplundh Tree Expert
Co., headquartered in Pennsylvania and doing business in Kanawha
County, claiming breach of contract in a 2011 dispute on March 27
in Ohio Circuit Court.
Mr. Bellew was employed by Asplundh until his termination on Nov.
13, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to pay
his wages within the time period mandated by the West Virginia
Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA).
The complaint states that Bellew did not receive his final wages
until on or after Nov. 26, 2014. According to the filing, the
plaintiff brings the suit in order to recoup his own wages and
also to prevent the company from similar actions toward other
employees.
Alleging violation of the WPCA, the plaintiff seeks declarative
judgment; injunctive relief; damages up to $75,000; pre- and post-
judgment interest; attorneys' fees; and costs.
Bellew is represented by Todd Bailess and Joy Mega of Bailess Law
in Charleston; and Rodney Smith, Jonathan Marshall and Tony L.
Clackler II of Bailey and Glasser in Charleston. The case has been
assigned to Judge James P. Mazzone.
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Faces "Berkman" Suit Over Company Sale
----------------------------------------------------------
Brent Berkman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Associated Estates Realty Corporation, et l., Case No.
1:15-cv-00928 (N.D. Ohio, May 12, 2015), is a class action brought
to enjoin the Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary
duties in connection with the sale of the Company under pressure
from an activist investor and through an unfair price.
Associated Estates Realty Corporation is an Ohio corporation with
its principal offices located at 1 AEC Parkway, Richmond Heights,
Ohio. Associated Estates is a real investment trust with a
portfolio of 56 apartment communities containing 15,004 units.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew S. Goldwasser, Esq.
CIANO & GOLDWASSER
1610 Midland Bldg.
101 Prospect Avenue, W
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 658-9900
Facsimile: (216) 658-9902
E-mail: asg@c-g-law.com
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
kkeenan@weisslawllp.com
AUDIOEYE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers
of AudioEye, Inc. securities from May 14, 2014 through April 1,
2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AudioEye investors
under the federal securities laws and Arizona securities laws.
To join the AudioEye class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-567.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona.
According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AudioEye's
financial statements contained errors concerning the
classification of revenues and expenses; (2) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over its financial reporting; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the suit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 15, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-567.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
AUTOZONE INC: Discovery Requests Denied in "Ellison" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Plaintiffs'
discovery requests in the case captioned JIMMY ELLISON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AUTOZONE, INC, Defendant, CASE NO. 10-MD-02159-CRB
(JSC) (N.D. Calif.)
Brought before the court are two joint discovery letters
concerning Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling Defendant
to designate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 30(b)(6)
witnesses on certain topics.
In an order dated April 2, 2015 which is available at
http://is.gd/KZAqQofrom Leagle.com, Judge Corley:
-- denied Plaintiffs' request for a 30(b)(6)designee on
topics related to their claims under the California
Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Labor Code Section
2699 without prejudice to refiling after the district
court has clarified whether such claims remain in the
case, and
-- denied Plaintiffs' request for a 30(b)(6) designee on
topics related to affirmative defenses without prejudice
to refiling after the parties meet and confer to narrow
the number of defenses asserted and Defendant has had the
opportunity to respond to interrogatories about those
defenses.
Jimmy Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Sing Lee --
Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Katherine
Ward Kehr -- Katherine.Kehr@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law
APC, Marc Primo, Initiative Legal Group APC, Mark R. Thierman,
Thierman Buck, LLP, Matthew Thomas Theriault --
MatthewTheriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Monica
Balderrama, Initiative Legal Group, LLP, Raul Perez --
Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Labat
-- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Robert
Kenneth Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC & Stan Karas, Capstone Law APC.
Silvia Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Aldon Louis Bolanos,
Bolanos Firm & Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP ..
William Doland, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Edward
Quintilone, II, Quintilone and Associates, Roger Richard Carter,
The Carter Law Firm, Scott Bradley Cooper, The Cooper Law Firm,
P.C. & Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP.
Haydee Escalante, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg Lander, Law
Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, Kevin Todd Barnes, Law Offices of
Kevin T. Barnes, Giuseppe Joseph Antonelli, Law Office of Joseph
Antonelli &Janelle Christine Carney, Law Office of Joseph
Antonelli.
Lynnetta Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by Morris Nazarian --
nazarian@hotmail.com
Mark Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Yablonovich, Law
Offices of Mark Yablonovich, Joseph Steven Hoff, Law Offices of
Mark Yablonovich & Patrick Joseph Clifford, Selman Breitman, LLP.
AutoZone, Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeremy Alan Roth --
jroth@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Michael E. Brewer --
mbrewer@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Anne-Marie
Waggoner -- awaggoner@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
David J. Row, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Jerrilyn Takada Malana --
jmalana@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Johanna Rene
Carney -- jcarney@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,Michael
A. Hoffman, III -- mhoffman@arenahoffman.com -- Arena Hoffman LLP,
Ronald D. Arena -- rarena@arenahoffman.com -- Arena Hoffman LLP &
Yasmeen Omidi, Littler Mendelson, P.C.
AXA ADVISORS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Marcus" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Pamela K. Chen denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case captioned BENNET MARCUS, STEVE KENNEDY,
and ISAAC KEIL, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by AXA ADVISORS, LLC, AXA
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and AXA NETWORK, LLC and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by AXA ADVISORS, LLC and
AXA NETWORK, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. AXA ADVISORS, LLC, AXA FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LLC, and AXA NETWORK, LLC and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by AXA ADVISORS, LLC, AXA FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LLC, and AXA NETWORK, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-
2339 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay pre-
contract associates and employee-agents minimum wage and overtime.
Plaintiff proposed a class consisting of individuals currently or
formerly engaged by Defendants in the State of New York as: (1)
pre-contract associates pursuant to a 12th edition or 20th edition
agreement from May 13, 2005 to January 1, 2011; and (2) employee-
agents pursuant to a 20th edition contract from May 13, 2005 to
the present.
In a memorandum and opinion dated March 31, 2015 which is
available at http://is.gd/BQh8Ogfrom Leagle.com, the Court found
that:
-- although common questions predominate over individualized
issues with respect to Plaintiffs' proposed class of
licensed per-contract associates, the sole proposed class
representative, Bennet Marcus, is not typical
-- Plaintiffs have failed to establish commonality as to 20th
edition agents.
As such, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied.
Bennet Marcus, and Steve Kennedy, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel Harris Markowitz, Leeds Brown Law, P.C., James Emmet
Murphy, Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Leeds Brown
Law, P.C., Jessica Lorraine Parada, Leeds Brown Law, P.C., LaDonna
Marie Lusher, Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Lloyd Robert Ambinder,
Virginia & Ambinder LLP & Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown
Law, P.C..
All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Harris Markowitz,
Leeds Brown Law, P.C., James Emmet Murphy -- jmurphy@vadallp.com
-- Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Kara Sue Miller -- kmiller@vadallp.com
-- Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Lloyd Robert Ambinder --
lambinder@vadallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder LLP & Michael
Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law, P.C..
Isaac Keil, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Harris Markowitz,
Leeds Brown Law, P.C., James Emmet Murphy, Virginia & Ambinder
LLP, Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Kara Sue
Miller, Virginia & Ambinder LLP.
AXA Advisors, LLC, AXA Network, LLC, and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by AXA Advisors, LLC, ACA Financial
Services, LLC, and AXA Network, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Adrian J Sawyer -- sawyer@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, H. Sinclair Kerr, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Hector Daniel
Geribon, AXA Equitable & Michael von Loewenfeldt --
mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.
BAKER HUGHES: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, Case No. 5:15-cv-00388
(W.D. Tex., May 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection
with recent a Mass Layoff and/or Plant Closing at the Defendant's
San Antonio, Texas site of employment.
Baker Hughes Incorporated owns and operates an oil field services
company in Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
BARON AND BUDD PC
3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
BANK OF BOSTON: Case Against EMC Mortgage Still Active
------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston is still involved in a class
action it filed against EMC Mortgage Corporation and Bear, Stearns
& Co., Inc. now known as J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.
The Company said, "On January 13, 2014, we filed a class action
complaint (the class action complaint) in the Superior Court
Department of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Suffolk County,
against EMC Mortgage Corporation and Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. now
known as J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, based on our investment in
certain private-label MBS trusts. The class action complaint
asserts claims of conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of
Massachusetts statutory law based on the withholding of value that
rightfully belonged to the private-label MBS trusts. We are
seeking various forms of relief including restitution, recovery of
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit."
BELL CANADA: Faces $750MM Suit Over Relevant Ads Program
--------------------------------------------------------
Cory McNutt at Android Headlines reports Bell was under scrutiny
for certain practices involving customer's private information.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada issued a
statement that they had "significant privacy concerns with Bell's
Relevant Advertising Program." It looks like more than just the
Privacy Commissioner had "concerns" about Bell's practices as we
learned that a $750 million class action suit has been brought
against Bell for their Relevant Ads Program. The lawsuit cites
damages for breach of privacy, breach of contract and breach of
the Telecommunications Act.
Bell's Relevant Ads Program started back in November of 2013 and
tracked Bell Mobility and Virgin Mobile customers' information,
including not only their personal account information but their
network usage as well. This information generated reports that
they would sell to 3rd party advertisers so they could tailor
their ads to the customers that may have an interest in the ad
based on their internet usage. The main problem that the
authorities had was that the collective practices were not
properly disclosed to Bell or Virgin Mobile customers -- rather
than have the customers opt-in to the program, they were
automatically placed in the program and had to go through a
convoluted process to opt-out.
Initially, Bell had agreed, if customers opted out of the program
they would retain the customer data already collected and continue
to add to the customer's profiles, just in case the customer
decided to opt back into the program. Later, Bell agreed to
immediately delete all of the customer information if they chose
to opt-out of the program.
Ted Charney -- tcharney@charneylawyers.com -- of Charney Lawyers
said, "The Relevant Ads Program was a misguided attempt by a
Canadian telecommunications company to generate advertising
revenue. If allowed to proceed, it constitutes a threat to the
core privacy rights of all Canadians."
David Robins of Sutts, Strosberg LLP added, "Through this class
action, the plaintiff seeks to hold Bell accountable and stop
other providers from selling customers' personal information
without informed consent."
Bell Mobility and Virgin Mobile of Canada customers who had
accounts with a data plan between November 16, 2013 and April 13,
2015 are encouraged to register at
www.bellmobilityprivacybreach.com
BG RETAIL: Dist. Ct. Gives Initial Approval to Davis Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill issued an order on May 11,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ce50ubfrom
Leagle.com, adopting Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe's
findings and recommendations in full in the case captioned JEROME
DAVIS and PRISCILLA HUMPHREY et al, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC.,
a New York corporation doing business as Famous Footwear, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01211-LJO-BAM, (E.D. Ca.).
Plaintiffs Jerome Davis and Priscilla Humphrey, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, initiated this class
action on June 4, 2013, in the Merced Superior Court alleging
various state law wage and hour violations against Defendant Brown
Shoe Company, Inc. On August 2, 2013, Defendants removed this case
to the Calif. Dist. Court claiming federal jurisdiction is proper
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 ("CAFA").
On February 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. On May 7, 2015, the
Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending
that the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement be granted.
Judge O'Neill has conducted a de novo review of the case and found
that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record
and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Settlement is granted and the Findings and
Recommendations dated May 7, 2015 are adopted in full, which
provides, among other things, that:
* For clarity, the term "Defendant" means BG Retail, LLC
d/b/a/Famous Footwear, erroneously sued as Brown Shoe Company,
Inc.
* The Settlement Class conditionally certified for settlement
purposes consist of all persons who are or were employed by
Defendant in a non-exempt, hourly-paid position in any of
Defendant's California Famous Footwear retail locations from June
4, 2009, until the date of Preliminary Approval.
* September 11, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., is the Hearing on the Motion
for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement.
Jerome Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee, Capstone
Law APC, Melissa Grant, Capstone Law APC & Raul Perez, Capstone
Law APC.
Priscilla Humphrey, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee,
Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC & Melissa Grant,
Capstone Law APC.
Brown Group Retail, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Hart Doyle, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP & Michael John
Hassen, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP.
BIG RUN COAL: Locals File Suit to Combat Landfill Nuisances
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lana Bellamy, writing for the Daily Independent, reports that
Randy Stapleton has been looking for a way to represent those
living in his area. Mr. Stapleton may have found that way in a
class action lawsuit filed against Big Run Landfill and other
parties. Mr. Stapleton is well known in the community, having run
twice for Boyd County commissioner to no avail. Mr. Stapleton is
representing a portion of his local population in the class action
lawsuit.
The complaint, filed with Boyd County Circuit Court, is being
leveled against Big Run Coal and Clay Company, Inc., River Cities
Disposal LLC, and CSX Transportation, Inc. Grayson attorney
William H. Wilhoit and Ashland lawyer John. A. Webb will serve as
counsel to Stapleton.
During a community-organized meeting in February, local
businessman Tom Wolf stood up and encouraged the 100 or so people
there to meet with Mr. Wilhoit about the lawsuit. Mr. Wilhoit,
who has a background in corporate law, said filing a lawsuit would
be the most effective way to combat landfill nuisances.
"Government can only do so much sometimes against corporations,"
Wilhoit told people at the meeting, referring to legislative
efforts the county and local state delegation have tried to
utilize in fixing the landfill problems.
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over Improper Sales Tax Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Beckerink, Jack Trachtenberg, Douglas Wick of Reed Smith, in
an article for JDSupra, report that on March 17, 2015, Laura
Bugliaro (the "Plaintiff") filed a class action lawsuit against
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. in the Circuit Court of the 11th
Judicial Circuit of Florida.
The complaint alleges that BJ's collects sales tax on the full
price of items on sale, instead of applying the discount and then
collecting sales tax on the discounted amount. The Plaintiff is
claiming that BJ's practices are contrary to regulations
promulgated by the Florida Department of Revenue. The complaint
alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. This case is similar to
other cases being filed around the country against different
retailers.
Background
The Plaintiff claims that on November 22, 2014, she bought a
television from a BJ's location in Florida for a "discounted sales
price" of $769.99 (the original price of the television was
$1,399.99). The Plaintiff claims she was wrongly charged sales
tax based on the full $1,399.99 price of the television because
the reduced price was not the result of a manufacturer's coupon or
discount. If the Plaintiff is correct, this resulted in an
additional $37.80 being collected by BJ's (based on Florida's 6%
state sales tax rate).
The Plaintiff also claims that she bought another television at a
different BJ's location in Florida on November 30, 2014, for a
discounted sale price. The Plaintiff again alleges that sales tax
was collected on the full price, not the discounted price of the
television. In this instance, the television was discounted by
$200.00, meaning an extra $12.00 was collected if the Plaintiff's
claims are true. Based on these two incidents, the Plaintiff
asserts that BJ's regular practice is to charge sales tax on the
full price of discounted purchases made in Florida.
Florida Sales Tax Regulations
According to regulations promulgated by the Department, the tax
base for discounted sales depends on whether the discount
originates with the manufacturer of the product or with the
retailer. Coupons, rebates, or discounts issued by the
manufacturer of a taxable good are not treated as a reduction in
the tax base, and therefore, sales tax is to be charged on the
full price of the item. Discounts and coupons issued by the
retailer, on the other hand, are supposed to be considered a
reduction in the sales tax base, and thus, tax should only be
charged on the discounted price paid for the product (i.e., full
price less the discount).
Florida's sales tax rules pose compliance challenges for
retailers. While sales tax decisions are nominally made by the
company's legal, tax, or accounting department, those policies
must be implemented by sales clerks or cash register software
programs. Sales clerks often lack the knowledge of whether a
discount originates from the manufacturer or the retailer, and
regardless, such employees should not be expected to interpret
complicated tax regulations as part of their job. Further, it is
difficult to program software for every possible deal, sale,
coupon, rebate, incentive, or other price reduction that manifests
itself in the real world. Indeed, depending on how a particular
reimbursement is booked and treated for income tax purposes, it
may be that the reimbursement should be treated as a manufacture
discount in one instance, but a retailer discount in another.
Therefore, even retailers who are earnestly attempting to comply
with Florida's and other states' sales tax laws can inadvertently
collect the wrong amount of tax on certain discounted sales.
Implications for retailers. There is no allegation that BJ's
pocketed the "overcharged" sales tax collections or profited in
any way from such collections. In fact, there is no indication
that BJ's did not remit all collected tax amounts to the
Department. Hence, there was no motive or incentive for BJ's to
collect excess sales tax from its customers. This suggests that
even if the allegations in the complaint are true, any incorrect
sales tax practices were inadvertent, contrary to the complaint's
assertions of fraudulent activity.
There has been a rash of similar class-action lawsuits filed
around the country alleging improper collection of sales tax in
connection with discounts or coupons, e.g., Wong v. Whole Foods
Market Group, Inc., Case 1:115-cv-00848, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (filed Jan. 28,
2015); Wong v. Target Corp., Case 1:115-cv-01985, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (filed Mar.
5, 2015). While the stakes are low for any individual customer who
claims to have been overcharged, the stakes are high for retailers
subjected to the machinations of aggressive law firms hoping for a
lucrative payday. Retailers should ensure they are diligently
complying with each state's unique sales tax rules. Reed Smith's
State Tax Group will continue to closely monitor this case and
similar cases across the United States.
BLUE CROSS: Court Narrows Claims in Alma Products Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington granted in part and denied in
part Defendant's motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff's motion
for partial summary judgment in the case captioned ALMA PRODUCTS
I, INC., and ALMA PRODUCTS I, INC. MEDICAL INSURANCE PLAN,
Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant,
CASE NO. 14-CV-13066 (E.D. Mich., Northern Division).
Alma Products I and Alma Products I Medical Insurance allege that
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) inflated the amounts
it reported hospitals charged for claims, and then allegedly kept
the disputed fees.
BCBSM moved to dismiss this case in its entirety, asserting that
the statute of limitations had already expired on all of the
Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs, in turn, filed a motion for
partial summary judgment.
In an order dated March 31, 2015 which is available at
http://is.gd/jJoy6tfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ludington ruled that:
-- because the statute of limitations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not bar
Plaintiffs' claims, BCBSM's motion to dismiss will be granted in
part,
-- the motion to dismiss will also be granted in part because
ERISA preempts Plaintiffs' state-law claims,
-- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied.
Alma Products I, Inc., and Alma Products I, Inc. Medical Insurance
Plan, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin A. Anderson --
baanderson@varnumlaw.com -- Varnum LLP, Kyle Patrick Konwinski --
kpkonwinski@varnumlaw.com -- Varnum LLP, Perrin Rynders --
prynders@varnumlaw.com -- Varnum, Riddering & Aaron M. Phelps --
amphelphs@varnumlaw.com -- Varnum, Riddering.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, Defendant, represented by
Donovan Solanus Asmar -- dasmar@bodmanlaw.com -- Bodman PLC, G.
Christopher Bernard -- cbernard@bodmanlaw.com -- Bodman, James J.
Carty -- jcarty@bodmanlaw.com -- Bodman PLC, Maria L. Martinez --
mmartinez@bodmanlaw.com -- Bodman PLC,Matthew T. Jane --
mjane@bodmanlaw.com -- Bodman, Matthew R. Rechtien --
rechtien@bodmanlaw.com -- Bodman PLC & Michael R. Colasanti --
mcolasanti@bodmanlaw.com -- Bodman PLC.
BOSTON TRANSIT: Faces "Rodriguez" Class Suit Over Winter Failures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
With transit authorities offering only a measly discount to the
Boston commuters they literally left out in the cold this winter,
a class wants a court to intervene, reports Zack Huffman, writing
for Courthouse News Service.
"Years of MBTA mismanagement and a culture of indifference are the
reasons the defendants breached the contracts with plaintiff and
the putative plaintiffs -- not the weather," the April 22
complaint states, abbreviating the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority.
Lead plaintiff Raquel Rodriguez says she bought month-long passes
in January, February and March, but was unable to use them with
consistency because of the MBTA's service reductions.
In the first three months of 2015, Boston faced record snowfall
and numerous cold snaps that all contributed to crippling the
mass-transit system, which saw day-long closures and reductions in
service for almost the entire time period.
Rodriguez blames dysfunctional management for leaving the system
susceptible to the burdens of winter. Her complaint in Middlesex
Superior Court names as defendants both the MBTA and Keolis
Commuter Services, the Maryland company that the MBTA contracts to
operate its commuter-rail service.
The complaint emphasizes that "there were at least three (3) to
seven (7) days between each double-digit snow storm," the
complaint states.
"This should have been more than enough time to clear the snow and
return to a full commuter rail schedule," it continues.
When the MBTA canceled "all commuter rail, subway and most bus
service" on Feb. 9 through all day Feb. 10, Gov. Charlie Baker
called the decision "unacceptable," the class notes.
Beverly Scott, then-CEO of the MBTA, resigned on Feb. 11 after
applauding transit employees for "making a way out of no way . . .
for ears without significant investment," the complaint states.
Though the MBTA announced a "winter recovery schedule" in
February, the class says its commuter-rail and T service failures
continued through March.
Rodriguez calls it "unclear why defendants could run one (1) or
two (2) trains per line in the morning on a weekday, but not more
than that."
The new schedule was inconvenient and inconsistent -- "trains were
still being cancelled and delayed frequently without proper
announcements," the complaint states.
Rodriguez calls the winter recovery schedule "odd, inconvenient
and unreliable."
"The MBTA announced at some point in February that they would not
have commuter rail service fully operation until the end of March
2014, well after the last of the double-digit winter storms," the
complaint states.
The class scoffs at how the MBTA offered to make up their failure
to customers on March 11 -- a 15 percent discount on monthly
passes for May.
Since MBTA service remained below 85 percent operational for at
least 10 consecutive weeks, the class calls the 15 percent
discount inadequate. It also potentially helps people who didn't
buy useless monthly passes in the winter, the complaint says.
A special committee Gov. Baker convened to review the MBTA
released its findings earlier in April, Rodriguez says. She notes
that report found that the MBTA had failed to spend $2.3 billion
of its capital budget over the last five years.
The report also showed that the MBTA had an unsustainable
operating budget, ineffective workplace practices, a shortsighted
expansion program, bottlenecked project delivery and
organizational instability, according to the complaint.
Rodriguez notes that Baker asked the MBTA's entire board of
directors on April 15 to resign.
Asked about the lawsuit, MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo said only
that "the MBTA has not seen the complaint."
When provided a copy of the complaint, Pesaturo did not respond to
additional requests for comment.
In addition to alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment,
the class wants to the court to find that the pass discount that
the MBTA is offering as refund has no binding effect on the case.
A spokesperson from Keolis did not respond to requests for
comment.
The class counsel created http://www.mbtaclassaction.com/to
gather more plaintiff names.
On April 24, two days after Rodriguez filed the complaint, the
MBTA treated riders to a day of free service.
The class is represented by:
Robert Richardson, Esq.
RICHARDSON & CUMBO, LLP
P.O. Box 960525
Boston, MA 02196
Telephone: (617) 816-9950
Facsimile: (888) 512-1599
E-mail: rrichardson@mbtaclassaction.com
BRE SELECT: Continues to Defend Against Apple REITs Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRE Select Hotels Corp said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to
continue to defend against the Apple REITs Litigation.
On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "District Court") ordered that
three putative class actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner
Associates, Inc., et al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et
al., and Leff v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and
amended the caption of the consolidated matter to be In re Apple
REITs Litigation. The District Court also appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action and
ordered lead plaintiffs to file and serve a consolidated complaint
by February 17, 2012. Apple Six was previously named as a party in
the Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc. et al. class
action lawsuit, which was filed on June 20, 2011.
On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Apple
Six, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund
Management, LLC, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc.,
Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their directors
and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc. ("David
Lerner Associates") and David Lerner. Apple REIT Seven, Inc.,
Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten,
Inc. are collectively referred to as "other Apple REIT companies."
The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of units in Apple Six and the other Apple REIT
companies, or those who otherwise acquired these units that were
offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates or its
affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New
Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida, asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The
consolidated complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities
laws of Connecticut and Florida. The complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.
On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of Apple Six and Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Apple Six, Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David
Lerner Associates, and certain executives of David Lerner
Associates. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of units of Apple Six and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., or
those who otherwise acquired these units, asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written
or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates
defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws. On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.
On April 18, 2012, Apple Six and the other Apple REIT companies
served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re
Apple REITs Litigation. Apple Six and the other Apple REIT
companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint with a memorandum of law in support of their motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On April 3, 2013, the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation was granted in full with
prejudice. On April 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
in the Apple REIT class action litigation, appealing the decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
July 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a brief in support of their
appeal. On October 25, 2013, defendants filed a brief opposing
plaintiffs' appeal. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a reply
brief in further support of their appeal. Oral argument on
plaintiffs' appeal was held on March 31, 2014.
On April 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") entered a summary order in
the In re Apple REITs Litigation . In the summary order, the
Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the District Court of the
federal securities claims and state securities law claims and
affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. However,
the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims and
remanded for further proceedings.
After remand, on June 6, 2014, defendants filed a brief in support
of their motion to dismiss. On July 9, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
opposition brief. Defendants' reply brief was filed on August 8,
2014.
The Company believes that any claims against it are without merit,
and it intends to continue to defend against them vigorously. At
this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of
this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible
loss or range of loss due to this proceeding.
BUFFALO CITY, NY: Educ Board Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Larry T. Garmon and John Vertino, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated v. Board of Education for the
Buffalo City School District, Case No. 1:15-cv-00431 (W.D.N.Y.,
May 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Board of Education for the Buffalo City School District is a
publicly funded school district organized and operating under the
laws of the State of New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul David Weiss, Esq.
BARTLO, HETTLER & WEISS
22 Victoria Boulevard
Kenmore, NY 14217
Telephone: (716) 873-8833
Facsimile: (716) 447-0677
E-mail: pweiss@bhwtlaw.com
BURLINGTON COUNTY: Strip Searches Violate New Jersey Law
--------------------------------------------------------
Jan Hefler, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer's philly.com,
reports that Burlington County has violated a New Jersey law that
prohibits strip searches in minor-offense cases unless there is a
reasonable suspicion that weapons, drugs, or other contraband are
being concealed, a federal judge decided in a case filed seven
years ago, before the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the issue.
Now, more than 10,000 detainees who were strip-searched at
Burlington's jails over the years -- despite minor offenses such
as failure to pay traffic fines or child support -- are expected
to be certified as a class and may qualify for damages that could
total millions.
U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman, who sits in Camden, said
during a March 26 hearing that "there appears to be a large number
of individuals who were strip searched . . . in violation of the
state statute during the time period identified in the proposed
class," according to the court transcript.
The class, which still must be defined by the judge after further
argument, is expected to cover a nine-year period between January
2004 and December 2012 when the county had a blanket policy of
strip-searching every detainee.
The case stems from a class-action complaint that was filed with
the District Court on behalf of Tammy Marie Haas and Conrad
Szcpaniak. The two contend they suffered psychological and other
harm after they were ordered to disrobe and be subjected to close
visual searches by corrections officers after their separate
arrests for failure to make child-support payments.
In 2007, Camden County settled a similar class-action lawsuit for
$7.5 million. Two years later, Gloucester County reached a $4
million settlement and Philadelphia settled a $5.9 million suit
with inmates. Other class-action suits in Atlantic and Ocean
Counties are pending.
The issue of how to balance the rights of inmates and detainees
with the prison system's need to maintain order in the jails has
been debated in courts across the country for years, and reached
the Supreme Court in 2012.
In the case of Albert Florence v. the County of Burlington, the
high court upheld a 2010 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit in Philadelphia that decided the county's strip-
search policy did not violate the rights of Florence. The
Bordentown resident was strip-searched in 2005 after he was
arrested on a warrant for failing to pay a fine issued on a charge
of eluding a police officer.
After the court split 5-4, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for
the majority, saying corrections officials may strip-search anyone
who is arrested -- even for minor offenses and without any
reasonable suspicion of contraband -- before admitting that person
into a jail. He said corrections officers must be allowed to
conduct these searches in order to prevent weapons and drugs from
being smuggled into jails and to control the spread of disease.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the dissenters, said the
searches were "an affront to human dignity and to individual
privacy" and should be only used when the charges are serious and
there's reason to believe contraband is present.
After the Florence case was dismissed, county lawyers declared a
victory, saying the need for safety and security in the jails
outweighed Florence's claims that his rights were violated.
But the Haas case, which was filed separately, survived.
The county's lawyers argued the Haas case should be dismissed too,
saying the Supreme Court decision had made the case "futile." But
Haas' attorneys contended their clients were an exception.
Haas was arrested in 2006 on a warrant that said she had failed to
pay $900 in child support. Nine months pregnant, Haas was strip-
searched at the county's Minimum Security Facility in Pemberton
and ordered to take a shower. She also was sprayed with a
delousing agent despite her "late-term pregnancy," according to
the suit filed by attorneys Carl D. Poplar, of Cherry Hill, and
William A. Riback, of Haddonfield.
Neither attorney returned calls for comment.
Evan H.C. Crook and Michelle L. Corea, who were hired as special
counsel to defend the county, also did not return calls.
Haas' lawyers argued the Supreme Court decision did not apply to
her case because she was not being admitted to the jail. Unlike
Florence, who was kept several days, Haas was placed in a holding
area and released "within hours" after her mother-in-law made the
child-support payment.
Haas had questioned whether the strip search was necessary but was
told "it was policy," the court documents said. She also was told
to "bend over, cough and spread her buttocks," the suit said, and
the warrant was later determined to be in error.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider ruled that the Haas case
could proceed.
When the county appealed, Hillman upheld the decision. In a
written 2013 opinion, Hillman said "eight of the nine Justices . .
. did not endorse an across-the-board rule that it is
constitutional to strip search all persons after they are
arrested."
Haas' lawyers also argued that New Jersey was one of 10 states
that have laws prohibiting strip searches unless there is
reasonable suspicion of contraband.
On March, Hillman ruled on this issue, granting the plaintiffs'
summary judgment motion by finding Burlington has been violating
this state law. A written opinion, he said, will follow. The state
law, he said, is "plain on its face" and clearly bars blanket
strip searches.
Hillman said this finding may make it unnecessary for him to
decide whether Haas' constitutional rights were violated. "The New
Jersey strip-search statute . . . provides greater protection than
is afforded by the Fourth Amendment," he said.
Burlington modified its strip-search policy in late 2012, years
after the state attorney general issued guidelines limiting the
practice. The attorney general also issued an opinion saying the
Supreme Court decision would not affect the state's more
restrictive law.
Now, anyone brought to the county jails in Mount Holly and
Pemberton is not searched unless there is a warrant, a voluntary
consent, or if an officer determines there is a reasonable
suspicion that the detainees may possess contraband.
BURNETT WELDING: Faces "Beck" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Beck III, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Burnett Welding, Inc. and Scott Burnette, Case No.
2:15-cv-00095-WCO (N.D. Ga., May 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a welding services company located
at 4739 Newton Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30506.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Joseph Sharman, Esq.
THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
Suite 100, 11175 Cicero Drive
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Telephone: (678) 242-5297
E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com
C & S WIRELINE: Faces "Cormier" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Cormier, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. C & S Wireline Services, L.L.C., Case No.
2:15-cv-00209 (S.D. Tex., May 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
C & S Wireline Services, L.L.C. owns and operates an oil and gas
services industry that performs wireline service, including cased-
hole logging, perforating, and pipe recovery services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon D. Brooks, Esq.
BROOKS LLP
400 Mann St, Ste 1001
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 885-7710
Facsimile: (361) 885-7716
E-mail: jbrooks@brooksllp.com
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Unjust Enrichment Claim Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge T.S. Ellis, III issued a memorandum opinion on
April 14, 2015, in the case captioned HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC.
GLOBAL BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-
1766, (E.D. Va.).
Among the various issues presented on a threshold dismissal and
transfer motion in this breach-of-contract, unjust enrichment and
ERISA case are:
(1) Whether plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to hold
a parent company liable for the alleged breaches of contract by
its subsidiary where, as here, the parent company neither signed
nor participated in the negotiation of the contracts and where, as
here, the complaint lacks factual allegations to support a claim
of alter ego liability or domination.
(2) Whether plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted where, as here,
plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is premised on violations of
existing contracts.
(3) Whether plaintiffs have stated a valid claim under ERISA
where, as here, the statutorily mandated minimum funding standard
for the plan at issue has been satisfied and the complaint lacks
factual allegations to support the claim that there is an
immediate or imminent threat that the minimum funding standard
will not be met.
(4) Whether plaintiffs' breach-of-contract and ERISA claims
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(7), Fed. R. Civ. P., for
failing to join a necessary and indispensable party to this
action.
(5) Whether transfer of this case is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. Section 1412, which implicates the following issues: (i)
whether, if transferred, the instant case is related to an ongoing
Chapter 11 proceeding in the bankruptcy court for the Northern
District of Illinois such that if this case is transferred, that
court will have jurisdiction over the transferred case; (ii)
whether transfer pursuant to Section 1412 is appropriate given
that the instant case did not arise under Title 11; and (iii)
assuming Section 1412 applies, whether transfer of this case to
the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Illinois is in
the interests of justice, would expedite administration of the
bankruptcy estate, and avoid inconsistent legal rulings.
The parties have fully briefed and argued these issues, as well as
other issues raised by defendant's dismissal motion.
"In summary, for the reasons stated, defendant's motion to dismiss
must be granted with respect to plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim. The remaining aspects of defendant's motion to dismiss are
neither reached nor decided. And defendant's motion to transfer
plaintiffs' remaining claims -- the breach-of-contract and ERISA
claims -- pursuant to Section 1412 must be granted, and this
matter must be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois,"
wrote Judge Ellis in his order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/QBphyyfrom Leagle.com.
CAFE PEOPLE: Faces "Barreno" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Humberto Barreno and Diego Tolguarcas, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Cafe People Inc. d/b/a E-
Dah, Gaeul Corp. d/b/a Overtime Sports Bar and Hye Young Lee, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02745 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a Korean restaurant and a sports
bar located at 160-43 Northern Blvd., Flushing, New York 11358.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
CAFE VICO: Faces "Vicente" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Thiago Vicente, and other similarly situated individuals v. Cafe
Vico, Inc. and Marcos Rodrigues, Case No. 0:15-cv-60992-BB (S.D.
Fla., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Broward County,
Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
CENTURYLINK INC: Dist. Court Adopts Mag. Judge's Recommendation
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE CENTURYLINK, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVITIVE ACTION v. GLEN F.
POST, III, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2318 (LEAD), CONSOLIDATED
CASE NO. 13-2983., 14-0658, 14-0659, 14-1031, 14-1032, (W.D. La.),
Defendants moved the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims set forth
in their First Amended Securities Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint").
Magistrate Judge Kirk issued on February 3, 2015, a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant the
motion and dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in the Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs filed objections.
After fully considering the record in this matter, District Judge
Robert G. James found that Magistrate Judge Kirk correctly stated
and applied the law and hence, adopted the Report and
Recommendation.
With respect the Plaintiffs' contention that if the Court finds
their Amended Complaint to be "inadequately pled," they should be
permitted to file a third amended complaint, Judge James held that
"the case has been pending since 2013, and Plaintiffs have already
been granted leave to amend once. Further, though Plaintiffs
contend that they should be given leave to amend a second time,
they do not explain or identify what allegations they could add to
support their claims. Accordingly, under these circumstances,
Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is denied."
A copy of Judge James' April 21, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/81JFd5from Leagle.com.
CHEMICAL AND MINING: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 14, 2015, disclosed that
a class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. (a/k/a
Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile S.A.) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") during the period between June 30, 2010 and
March 17, 2015 (the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 19, 2015.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-
4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/sqm/.
Any member of the putative 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.
The complaint charges SQM and certain of its officers and/or
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
SQM purports to be the world's largest producer of potassium
nitrate, iodine and lithium chemicals.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) money from SQM was channeled illicitly to
electoral campaigns for Chilean politicians and political parties
as far back as 2009; (ii) SQM had filed millions of dollars' worth
of fictitious tax receipts with Chilean authorities in order to
conceal bribery payments from at least 2009 through fiscal 2014;
(iii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times and not prepared in accordance with applicable
accounting principles. As a result of these false and misleading
statements and/or omissions, the price of SQM ADSs was
artificially inflated during the Class Period, reaching a high of
over $66.00 per ADS in July 2011.
On February 26, 2015, SQM issued a press release stating that an
extraordinary Board meeting had been held "to analyze the matters
that have been divulged by the press in recent weeks and are the
subject of ongoing public cases." On March 11, 2015, SQM
announced that its Board would meet the next day to evaluate a
request by the Office of the Public Prosecutor for delivery of
account records and related information in connection with its
investigation into improper political campaign contributions. On
March 16, 2015, SQM announced that it had turned over to the
Chilean Internal Revenue Service all of the information requested
by the Public Prosecutor and that the Board had agreed to
terminate the Company's Chief Executive Officer. The complaint
alleges that as a result of these partial disclosures, the price
of SQM ADSs declined -- from a closing price of $26.17 per ADSs on
February 25, 2015, to close at $22.10 per ADS on March 17, 2015.
Then on March 18, 2015, SQM announced that three representatives
on its Board from Canadian stakeholder The Potash Corporation of
Saskatchewan had resigned. In a separate release, Potash
disclosed that the three directors had resigned because they were
"unable to ensure either that an appropriate investigation [was]
conducted or that SQM collaborate[d] effectively with the Public
Prosecutor," and that the directors' "emphatic requests that SQM
fully and voluntarily cooperate with . . . the Public Prosecutor
. . . ha[d] been rejected by a majority of the board." As a result
of this news, the complaint alleges that the price of SQM ADSs
fell an additional $4.23 per ADS, or more than 19%, on unusually
heavy trading volume, to close at $17.87 per ADS on March 19,
2015.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
SQM ADSs during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history,
including the largest securities class action judgment.
CHRISTMAS ISLAND: Supreme Court Freeze Demolition Order
-------------------------------------------------------
Peta Carlyon, writing for Radio Australia, reports that a freeze
has been ordered on the demolition of a Christmas Island detention
facility, as lawyers for a young asylum seeker claim it may
contain important evidence in a class action against the Federal
Government.
The girl, known only as AS, is suing the Minister for Immigration
and Border Protection and his department, alleging they failed to
provide adequate health care and schooling opportunities for
children. At the time the class action was launched last year,
the girl was six years old and Scott Morrison was the minister.
He has since moved to the Ministry of Social Services and been
replaced by Peter Dutton.
Lawyers representing the child said she had been in detention for
more than a year and had suffered physical and mental health
issues, including separation anxiety after her mother was
transferred to the Australian mainland. They said she also
suffered bed-wetting, a stammer, post-traumatic stress disorder
and major depression, and an ongoing dental infection.
The Government moved children off the island in December.
The class action also covers pregnant and other asylum seekers
held in detention who have claimed physical or psychological
injuries, and is seeking compensation as well as court orders.
Government Planned 'Imminent'
Demolition of Compounds
At a directions hearing in the Victorian Supreme Court, lawyers
for AS said they had discovered that the Government planned to
demolish the Aqua and Lilac compounds on Christmas Island.
The compounds were built by the Rudd Labor government as an
extension to the island's North West immigration detention center.
The court heard its demolition was "imminent", and lawyers for the
Government said a contract had been signed and entered into to
demolish the compound on April 17.
But lawyers for AS want access to the compound, among other
facilities on the island, to assist their case in determining if
it had a bearing on the psychological state of their client. They
told the court "the battlelines were drawn" by a letter from
authorities "indicating inspection would only be allowed with a
number of conditions".
Lawyers for the plaintiff said the conditions were "unacceptable"
and included that they not take any photographs of Christmas
Island detention facilities, and give authorities at least two
weeks' notice of any intention to visit.
Justice Stephen Kaye said he was persuaded the compound had
"sufficient relevance" to the case to order a hold on its
destruction.
"My concern is the compound should not be demolished," Justice
Stephen Kaye said.
"There is a degree of urgency attached to it.
"I will make an order restraining the defendant from demolishing
the Lilac Aqua compound, pending the hearing and determination of
the application."
CLINTON HILL: Faces "Cadet" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cadet, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Clinton Hill Gourmet, Inc. d/b/a Alice's Arbor, Kim
Pham and Dimitrivlahakis, Case No. 1:15-cv-02743 (E.D.N.Y., May
12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 549 Classon
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11212.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
COOPER VISION: Faces "Marby" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn E. Mabry and Jennifer Sineni, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson
Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC a/k/a ABB
Optical Group, Case No. 4:15-cv-00764-NCC (E.D. Mo., May 13,
2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to
impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by
subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs)
and eliminate price competition on those products by big box
stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent
them from discounting those products.
The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the
business of making eye care products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr.
Tiffany M. Yiatras, EDMO 5268129
CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643
Telephone: (314) 725-7700
Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com
tyiatras@careydanis.com
- and -
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Daniel Karon, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. Saint Clair Avenue, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113-1200
Telephone: (216) 551-9175
Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
COST PLUS: Recalls Twist Swivel Stools Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Management Services Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced
a voluntary recall of about 125,000 Twist Swivel Stools. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
The weld joint attaching the stool seat to the center post can
break, posing a fall hazard.
This recall involves twist swivel stools with a light brown-finish
wood seat and base with four black metal legs. The stools measure
24.5 inches high in the non-extended position and 29.5 inches when
fully extended. SKU number 438000 is printed on the UPC sticker
attached to the underside of the stool seat.
The firm has received 12 reports of the stool's joint breaking.
No injuries have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Bq6tjp
The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
Cost Plus World Market and World Market stores nationwide and
online at www.worldmarket.com from February 2011 through February
2015 for about $120.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled stool and
return it to any Cost Plus World Market or World Market store for
a full refund. Refunds can be used toward the purchase of a
replacement stool when it becomes available.
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Defendants Have Yet to Answer Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 24, 2015, that Spansion Inc. and the other named defendants
have not filed an answer or other responsive pleading to the
complaints or the amended complaints in the case Walter Jeter v.
Spansion Inc., et al., Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, (No. 114CV274635); Shiva Y. Stein v.
Spansion Inc., el. al., Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara (No. 114CV274924).
On December 17, 2014, Walter Jeter filed a class action complaint
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara (No. 114CV274635) against Spansion Inc., its directors,
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, and Mustang Acquisition
Corporation. On December 24, 2014, Shiva Y. Stein filed a similar
class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara (No. 114CV274924) against the
same defendants. On January 12, 2015, each of the plaintiffs filed
substantially identical amended complaints. Both cases allege that
the proposed merger was the result of a flawed process and
provides insufficient value to Spansion's shareholders, and
further allege that the disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 19, 2014 are materially incomplete and misleading.
Plaintiffs in both cases assert claims against Spansion's
directors for a breach of fiduciary duty and, as to Spansion Inc.,
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation and Mustang Acquisition
Corporation, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. The
plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Merger Agreement between Spansion
Inc. and Cypress Semiconductor Corporation which was announced on
December 1, 2014, or alternatively, rescission in the event the
defendants are able to consummate it, damages and attorney fees
and costs.
Spansion Inc. and the other named defendants have not filed an
answer or other responsive pleading to the complaints or the
amended complaints.
The Company has not accrued an amount related to this case as it
is currently unable to predict the final outcome of this lawsuit
and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate
a range of possible loss.
DAIRY FARMERS: Court Rejects Settlement in "Allen" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Christina Reiss in Vermont denied without prejudice a
motion for final approval of a proposed settlement in the case
captioned ALICE H. ALLEN, LAURANCE E. ALLEN, d/b/a Al-Iens Farm,
GARRET SITTS, RALPH SITTS, JONATHAN HAAR, CLAUDIA HAAR, and
RICHARD SWANTAK, on behalf of Themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., and DAIRY
MARKETING SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:09-CV-230 (D. Vt.)
A class action was initiated by Plaintiffs alleging that
Defendants and their alleged co-conspirators engaged in a wide-
ranging conspiracy at the processor and cooperative levels to
control the supply of raw Grade A milk in Order 1, which led to
the payment of lower premiums to dairy farmers for the milk.
A proposed settlement was presented to the court for final
approval which required Defendants to make a payment of $50
million dollars to class members in two installments, authorizes
certain injunctive relief, provides for incentive payments to
subclass representatives, and seeks a proposed attorney's fees
award of approximately $16.6 million, plus expenses. In exchange,
class members must enter into a proposed release. A full day
Fairness Hearing was held on January 29, 2015.
In an opinion and order dated March 31, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/naFAzTfrom Leagle.com, the court denied without
prejudice the motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement. The court was unable to conclude that the reaction of
the class has been positive. Instead, it appeared that there is
relatively strong opposition to the proposed settlement.
Alice H. Allen, Laurance E. Allen, Garret Sitts, and Ralph Sitts,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq., Gravel & Shea
PC, Brent W. Johnson, Esq. -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Danyll W. Foix, Esq. --
dfoix@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Emily J. Joselson,
Esq. -- ejoselson@langrock.com -- Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP,
Gregory J. Commins, Jr. -- gcommins@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, Kit A. Pierson -- kpierson@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Lisa B. Shelkrot, Esq. --
lshelkrot@langrock.com -- Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Robert G.
Abrams, Esq. -- rabrams@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP,
Robert J. Brookhiser, Esq. -- rbrookhiser@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP & Terry L. Sullivan, Esq. -- tsullivan@bakerlaw.com
-- Baker & Hostetler LLP.
Jonathan Haar, and Claudia Haar, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
D. Manitsky, Esq., Gravel & Shea PC, Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. --
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Brent W. Johnson, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Daniel
A. Small, Esq. -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, David A. Balto, Esq. --
david.balto@dcantitrustlaw.com -- The Law Offices of David A.
Balto, Emmy L. Levens, Esq. -- elevens@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, George F. Farah, Esq. --
gfarah@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC &
Kit A. Pierson -- kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Richard Swantak, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Manitsky,
Esq., Gravel & Shea PC, Benjamin D. Brown, Esq., Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Esq., Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Danyll W. Foix, Esq., Baker & Hostetler LLP,
David A. Balto, Esq., The Law Offices of David A. Balto, Emmy L.
Levens, Esq., Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Kit A. Pierson,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., and Dairy Marketing Services, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Amber L. McDonald, Esq --
amcdonald@bakerandmiller.com -- Baker & Miller PLLC, Carl R. Metz,
Esq. -- cmetz@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Ian P. Carleton,
Esq. -- icarleton@sheeheyvt.com -- Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C.,
Jonathan B. Pitt, Esq. -- jpitt@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP,
Kevin Hardy, Esq. -- khardy@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP,
Lauren Collogan, Esq. -- lcollogan@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly
LLP, R. Jeffrey Behm -- jbehm@sheeheyvt.com -- Sheehey Furlong &
Behm P.C., Steven R. Kuney, Esq. -- skuney@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly LLP & W. Todd Miller, Esq. -- tmiller@bakerandmiller.com
-- Baker & Miller PLLC.
Vermont Attorney General's Office, Amicus, represented by Robert
F. McDougall, Vermont Office of the Attorney General.
* * *
The Associated Press reports that a judge has rejected a proposed
settlement between cooperative Dairy Farmers of America and
Northeast dairy farmers over an alleged effort to drive down
prices paid to farmers. U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss
says the payments to farmers from the $50 million proposal are
inadequate if there are no significant changes to how the
cooperative does business.
She also says the farmers' lawyers would be the primary
beneficiaries of the proposed settlement if their fees are
approved. The 2009 class-action lawsuit charged the cooperative,
its marketing arm and Dallas-based Dean Foods with working
together to monopolize the market for raw milk in the Northeast.
The settlement would have provided about $4,000 to more than 7,000
dairy farmers. Dean Foods agreed to a separate $30 million
settlement in 2011.
DANIEL T. KOPEC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Caprio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Daniel T. Kopec, Esq., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-
03289-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., May 12, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' abusive, deceptive and unfair practices of collecting
debt.
Daniel T. Kopec, Esq. is a company that uses the mail, telephone,
and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal
purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due
another.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq. (JJ5509)
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces Andrew "Speese" Shareholder Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Dawson Geophysical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the
transition period From October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014, that
Andrew Speese, through his attorney, filed on January 7, 2015, a
purported shareholder class action and derivative action relating
to the Merger on behalf of himself and Legacy Dawson's other
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas (Midland/Odessa Division), against Legacy
Dawson, Legacy Dawson's directors prior to the Merger, Legacy TGC
and Merger Sub. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
members of Legacy Dawson's Board of Directors at the time the
action was initiated (the "Legacy Dawson Board") breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the strategic business
combination with Legacy TGC, and that Legacy Dawson's registration
statement dated November 6, 2014, as subsequently amended, and
prospectus filed on December 31, 2014 contain material omissions
and materially misleading statements. The complaint sought to
enjoin Legacy Dawson, Legacy TGC and Merger Sub from taking any
actions that would allow the consummation of the proposed
strategic business combination contemplated by the merger
agreement or, now that the strategic business combination has been
consummated, a judgment for damages.
DELTA AIRLINES: Avoids Liability to US Fliers Delayed From Europe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court dealt a setback to U.S. airline passengers, saying a
European Union regulation that provides compensation for flight
cancellations and long delays cannot be enforced in U.S. courts.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled in favor of
Delta Air Lines Inc in concluding that only courts in EU countries
may enforce a 2004 law requiring carriers to compensate
inconvenienced travelers departing from those countries. That
law, Regulation 261, awards passengers between 250 euros and 600
euros (US$265 to $636), depending on flight distance, if their
flights are delayed for more than three hours or canceled on short
notice.
Several U.S. residents sued Delta in a proposed class action in
the United States, after the Atlanta-based carrier failed to
compensate them for long delays on transcontinental flights.
Writing for a three-judge appeals court panel, Circuit Judge Diane
Sykes said the "text and structure" of the Regulation 261 require
that compensation claims be handled in Europe, potentially making
enforcement more consistent.
"Asking a U.S. court to wade into an area of EU law that is
fraught with uncertainty risks offending principles of
international comity," Mr. Sykes wrote. "That is particularly
true when the claim created by foreign law is alien to our own;
our domestic law has no cause of action analogous to EU 261."
Hank Bates, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately
respond to requests for comment. Delta and its lawyer did not
immediately respond to similar requests. The decision upheld an
October 2012 ruling by U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang in
Chicago.
The plaintiffs included Illinois residents Gennadiy Volodarskiy
and his wife, Oxana Volodarskaya, whose August 2009 flight to
Chicago from London was delayed more than eight hours. They also
included New Jersey resident Richard Cohen, who along with his
wife arrived in Philadelphia more than 24 hours late after Delta
canceled their November 2010 flight from Paris.
The case is Volodarskiy et al v. Delta Airlines Inc, 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-3521. (1 euro = US$1.06)
DHL EXPRESS: Car Dealer's Suit Over Jet Fuel Surcharge Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio ruled that Plaintiff has no
cause of action against Defendants as alleged in the Amended
Complaint in the case captioned JIM BALL PONTIAC-BUICK-GMC, INC.,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, and
Plaintiff, v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS,
INC., DPWN HOLDINGS (USA), INC., formerly known as DHL Holdings
(USA), Inc., Defendants, NO. 08-CV-761F (CONSENT) (W.D.N.Y.).
A class action was commenced on October 14, 2008 by Plaintiff,
complaining that Defendant improperly charged Plaintiff a jet fuel
surcharge in connection with the Plaintiff's shipments transported
solely via motor vehicles, not involving air transportation in
breach of the contracts entered into by the parties with respect
to such shipments.
In a Decision and Order dated March 26, 2015 which is available at
http://is.gd/0lbfeSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Foschio found that
Plaintiff has no cause of action against Defendants. The jet fuel
surcharge was linked to Defendants' expedited delivery services
and not mode of service, regardless of whether any air
transportation was involved and Plaintiff's packages were
delivered solely by truck.
Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL C. OLIVERIO, JOHN L. SINATRA, JR.
-- jsinatra@hodgsonruss.com -- REETUPARNA DUTTA --
rdutta@hodgsonruss.com -- of Counsel The Guaranty Building
Buffalo, New York.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff
RICHARD I. WERDER, JR., of Counsel New York, New York.
DECHERT LLP Attorneys for Defendants JOSEPH F. DONLEY --
joseph.donley@dechert.com -- of Counsel New York, New York.
EDWIN V. WOODSOME -- edwin.woodsome@dechert.com -- CHRISTOPHER S.
RUHLAND -- christopher.ruhland@dechert.com , ANDREW S. WONG --
andrew.wong@dechert.com , of Counsel Los Angeles, California.
DIVORCE SOURCE: Facing Class Action Filed by Former Customer
------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Record reports that a Louisiana man is suing an
online company that prepares legal documents, claiming the
business isn't licensed to practice law in the state.
Anthony Lowery filed the lawsuit on April 8 in U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Divorce Source Inc.
alleging the company violated Louisiana state law by helping him
prepare divorce documents online in August. The lawsuit claims
Divorce Source advertises that it is a "money-saving alternative
to lawyers."
"It is unlawful for the defendant to charge or collect fees from
its customers for the preparation of legal documents, and the
defendant is legally obligated to refund to the plaintiff and the
plaintiff class all fees charged and collected by the defendant,"
the lawsuit said.
According to the suit, Lowery paid approximately $299 to Divorce
Source to prepare a petition for divorce while he was in
Louisiana. State laws stipulate that part of practicing law is
drawing up papers related to the court proceedings, the suit says.
In addition to himself, Lowery is seeking class action status for
all those that used Divorce Source services to prepare legal
documentation. The lawsuit seeks to recover legal fees paid by
Lowery to the company for preparing the documents. The lawsuit is
also seeking a refund of legal expenses incurred by the class
members.
Lowery is represented by William H. Beaumont of William H.
Beaumont, T.A. in New Orleans and Roberto L. Costales of Costales
Law Office in New Orleans.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
case No. 2:15-cv-01120
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: "Nitsch" Suit Claims Must Be Arbitrated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against several major
animation studios must arbitrate his dispute with DreamWorks,
reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.
Robert Nitsch sued several animation studios, including
DreamWorks, last September for allegedly stifling competition by
agreeing not to cold-call each others' employees and by setting
wage and salary ranges among themselves.
The suit, which was consolidated with two similar cases, was
dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh earlier in April, but
the plaintiffs were given a chance to file an amended complaint.
An amended complaint has not yet been filed.
However, in a new order stemming from a motion to compel
arbitration filed by the defendants in January, Koh ruled that
Nitsch is bound to an arbitration agreement with DreamWorks.
Nitsch worked at Dreamworks from 2007 to 2011.
The judge ruled that Nitsch must arbitrate his claims that arise
from his employment at the company, and stayed prosecution of his
claims until the arbitration process is complete.
Koh did deny the other defendants' arbitration requests as to
Nitsch, who also worked for Sony Pictures Imageworks in 2004,
finding that Nitsch's claims against the other studios are
independent from any employment agreement involving arbitration
that he signed with Dreamworks.
The defendants in the suit are DreamWorks, Disney, Lucasfilm,
Pixar, ImageMovers, Two Pic MC, Sony Pictures Animation, Sony
Pictures Imageworks and Blue Sky Studios.
It's unclear what will happen to the arbitration order if the case
is ultimately dismissed.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Small, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
DreamWorks is represented by:
Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
Los Angeles Office
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7430
Facsimile: (213) 229-6430
E-mail: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
The case is In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litigation, Master
Docket No. 14-CV-04062-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
ENOVA INT'L: Court Hass Yet to Rule on Summary Judgment Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enova International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has not yet
ruled on a motion for summary judgment filed in the case by
Flemming Kristensen.
The Company said, "On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against
us and other unaffiliated lenders and lead providers. The lawsuit
alleges that the lead provider defendants sent unauthorized text
messages to consumers on behalf of us and the other lender
defendants in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages, an
injunction against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees
and costs. We filed an answer to the complaint denying all
liability. On March 26, 2014, the Court granted class
certification. On October 24, 2014, we filed a motion for summary
judgment, and the court has not yet ruled on this motion. On
January 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment against all of the defendants, and the court has not yet
ruled on this motion. Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable
ruling nor the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this
matter can be determined at this time, and we are currently unable
to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by
ASC 450-20-20, for this litigation. We believe that the
plaintiff's claims in the complaint are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
EXPEDIA: May Face Class Action Over Lousy Customer Service
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Greiner, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that an Ohio
man's dissatisfaction with his treatment by the travel Web site
Expedia, has, in the words of Ron Burgandy, "escalated really
quickly." So now Expedia is looking at a class action over
damages ranging from a high of $1.33 to a low of $.13.
Here's the back story, according to the court:
In April 2014, Jeffery Weidenhamer visited the Expedia Web site to
purchase airfares for his family of four. He could not complete
the purchases on the Web site. A pop-up window appeared with this
message:
"It looks like we have an issue with the site. We're working to
fix this as soon as possible. Here are some ways to find your
perfect trip in the meantime: Download the Award-Winning Expedia
App: Our app may be available even if the site is not. With it,
you can book flights and hotels or check all your Expedia
itineraries from anywhere. The app won the People's Voice Webby
Award and we think you'll like it too. To say thank you for your
patience, we'll also give you 5 percent OFF YOUR APP PURCHASE with
the code MOBILEGO."
Mr. Weidenhamer did as the pop-up window suggested. He downloaded
the app to his tablet computer and purchased four tickets. But he
didn't receive a 5 percent discount.
Mr. Weidenhamer paid $398.30 for each of his tickets, for a total
of $1593.20. But when the app displayed his fares for purchase, it
advised him that the airline "may" charge a fee for checked
baggage. When he clicked on a hyperlink for "additional fees,"
Expedia informed him that the airline he chose would not charge
for each passenger's first checked bag. But when Mr. Weidenhamer
arrived at the airport, however, the airline informed him fees
applied to his family's first checked bags. Mr. Weidenhamer and
his family paid about $650 for their first checked bags.
In May 2014, Mr. Weidenhamer complained to Expedia. He demanded a
credit equivalent to 5 percent of his family's total airfare to
account for the discount he did not receive, changes to the
Expedia Web site to correctly disclose when fares do not include
baggage fees and a credit for $650 to account for the baggage fees
Expedia did not disclose.
Expedia refused all of Mr. Weidenhamer's requests. It informed Mr.
Weidenhamer the 5 percent discount it had promoted did not apply
to multiple-ticket purchases like the one he made. But it said
nothing about his requests for changes to the Web site,
documentation of those changes, or a credit to account for the
baggage charges.
Mr. Weidenhamer contacted the Ohio Attorney General to relay his
complaints about Expedia. When the Attorney General contacted
Expedia to inquire about the dispute, Expedia chose to refund
$79.66 (5 percent of the total that Mr. Weidenhamer paid to
Expedia) to Mr. Weidenhamer's credit card. Expedia did nothing to
respond to Mr. Weidenhamer's request for changes to the website,
documentation of the changes, or his request for a refund of the
baggage fees he paid.
Mr. Weidenhamer sued Expedia in a federal court in its home state
of Washington. His lawsuit sought damages not only on his own
behalf, but damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a
nationwide class of Expedia customers.
Expedia filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Mr. Weidenhamer lacked
"standing" to bring the lawsuit, since he suffered no damages,
given Expedia's grudging refund. Article III of the Constitution
requires a party suffer an injury to have "standing" to sue.
Weidenhamer argued that given Expedia's delay in granting the
refund, he'd lost the interest he could have otherwise earned on
the money. Expedia urged the court to dismiss, given the amount at
issue was "de minimus."
And while the court agreed that the damages were inconsequential
($1.33 using a 10 percent interest rate, and $.13 using a 1
percent rate) it could find no legal justification to impose a
minimum damages rule. It also noted that Weidenhamer's claim that
Expedia was unjustly enriched - it got his business under false
pretenses - and his claim for injunctive relief also conferred
standing. The court denied Expedia's motion, and the case may
proceed to the class certification stage. That is not good news
for Expedia.
But the lesson is clear. Lousy customer service can cost a
business in all kinds of ways. And while most dissatisfied
customers won't "make a federal case" of it, the ones who do might
just win!
Jack Greiner is a lawyer with the Graydon Head law firm in
Cincinnati and represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and
media issues.
FLORIDA: Detainees Fail to Sway Court in Suit vs. Sheriff
---------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that juvenile
detainees failed to persuade a federal court that a Florida
sheriff and jail medical staff denied them adequate care and
exposed them to harm during detention.
A group of juveniles sued Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd and
Corizon Health in 2012, alleging 14th Amendment violations during
their detention at the Central County Jail in Bartow, Fla. The
jail's juvenile detention center houses minors as young as eight,
most of whom are awaiting trial, according to the lawsuit. The
group, who claimed to represent all juvenile detainees affected by
the alleged violations, said the sheriff failed to provide them
with rehabilitative services during detention. They also claimed
the sheriff failed to protect them from harm, used unlawful force
and subjected juveniles to "dangerously violent conditions of
confinement."
Prison officials disregarded the juveniles' mental health needs
and placed them in isolation without justification, while Corizon
failed to provide adequate mental health treatment and ignored the
detainees' serious medical needs, the complaint said.
A federal judge certified the juveniles' class, as well as two
sub-classes, but refused to enter an injunction against the
defendants. After a 2013 month-long bench trial, the court
concluded that the juveniles could not show that the system and
practices at Central County Jail amounted to 14th Amendment
violations.
Earlier in April, U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday reviewed the
parties' interpretation of the 14th Amendment as it applies to
juvenile detainees' rights, concluding that the plaintiffs failed
to prove that either the sheriff or Corizon were deliberately
indifferent to their medical needs or ignored any risk of serious
harm.
"In fact, the conditions of juvenile detention at CCJ are not
consistent with the plaintiffs' dark, grim, and condemning
portrayal," Merryday wrote in the April 16 ruling. "The
plaintiffs insist that the level of fighting in juvenile detention
at CCJ, say, two 'fights' per week, is unconstitutional. But even
after immense and determined discovery, litigation assistance by
'experts,' and weeks of trial, the plaintiffs' characterization of
the level of violence at CCJ remains wholly impressionistic
because the plaintiffs offered no data from comparable facilities.
For all that the evidence in this action proves, the two 'fights'
per week among 80 to 100 teenage detainees living in close
quarters at CCJ might constitute a historic high or a historic
low."
The class filed the lawsuit less than six months after the sheriff
opened the juvenile detention facility in Bartow, alleging
deliberate indifference to "a widespread and pervasive pattern of
substantial risks of serious harm to the juveniles."
Given Judd's lack of experience in running this type of facility,
the plaintiffs were not justified in attributing all subsequent
improvements in management and operation of the juvenile detention
center to an attempt to evade liability, according to the 182-page
ruling.
"Lastly, as anyone who has visited a jail or prison well knows,
the lamentable sight of humans deprived of liberty and confined
together in a facility -- the sight of humans whose life has gone
wrong for some reason or reasons and whom the community must
restrain or, at least, detain -- triggers a strong emotional
response," Merryday wrote. "The sight of a person under 18 in
detention, wearing a prisoner's gown, awaiting a trial, and coming
to grips with consequences and circumstances almost always beyond
their effective capacity, triggers an even stronger visceral
response, including an impulse to rescue the juvenile from the
circumstance and from the juvenile's own poor, even destructive,
choices (or those of others). No one wants any of these juveniles
to be where they are, to have done what they have done (probably),
and to continue on the course they are on."
However, it is not up to the courts to determine public resources
distribution, the judge noted.
"The juveniles deserve and should have more -- perhaps, quite a
bit more -- than the constitutionally permissible minimum," the
ruling adds. "Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment is reserved for the
protection of a detainee whose circumstance is below the
constitutionally permissible minimum, which is patently not the
case in juvenile detention at CCJ -- despite any intermittent
flare-ups, any episodic delays in medical or mental health
treatment, any occasional over-reaction or inattention by
deputies, and the like. In design and implementation, the overall
regulatory program by the Sheriff at CCJ is well above the
constitutionally permissible minimum (and safely below
perfection)."
The court found that the "civilized and regulated conditions
prevailing at CCJ" were very different from the life-threatening,
unconscionable conditions experienced by juvenile plaintiffs in
other cases cited in support of the class's allegations.
The class failed to show that mental health care for Polk County
juvenile detainees was "grossly inadequate" and that detainees
were subjected to unnecessary, harmful isolation or to excessive
force, according to the ruling.
The use of pepper spray on juveniles, which was central to the
plaintiffs' argument concerning excessive force, is the most
effective way to stop a fight without inflicting an injury, and is
mostly used for that purpose at the Polk County detention center,
the judge said. The sheriff's experts testified that pepper spray
is effective, precise, and safe but transiently painful, which
makes it less dangerous than hands-on force in stopping fights and
protecting detainees and staff.
Likewise, the plaintiffs' "simplistic formula" failed to establish
the defendants were deliberately indifferent to some detainees'
mental health problems, the court found, noting that "a
constitutionally compliant program for mental health diagnosis and
treatment for inmates in a prison with terms of imprisonment
measurable in years or decades is quite different from the details
of a constitutionally compliant program for juvenile detainees in
Polk County, most of whose detention is measurable in days."
Merryday agreed that "the plaintiffs offer a 'best practices case'
rather than demonstrate that the conditions of juvenile detention
under the Sheriff's administration fall below the constitutional
minimum."
Although the plaintiffs said two of their experts could testify to
the inadequacy of some of the sheriff's past or present policies,
the juvenile detainees' claims ultimately turn on whether the
sheriff's management of the detention center violates the
Constitution, the opinion states.
The plaintiffs' contention that the sheriff runs the juvenile
detention center as an adult facility, where detainees are often
left unsupervised and subjected to "jail-house justice," is also
unsupported by evidence, according to the ruling.
"Some juveniles at every detention facility (and every other
station in life), including at CCJ, have trouble following, or
choose to defy, the institutional rules," Merryday added.
"However, the testimony in this case establishes that the deputies
and supervisors maintain the overall respect and confidence of
most juveniles, and the evidence demonstrates that the detention
staff overall interacts confidently and evenly with the juveniles
-- with the exception of the occasional and inevitable skirmish."
The commander of the jail was among those who testified that the
deputies, many of whom are coaches, fathers or former teachers,
often coach and mentor the detainees.
Moreover, the detention center passed every inspection for
compliance with state and federal guidelines for juvenile
detention, according to the ruling.
The court found that some of the class's expert witnesses were not
qualified to testify on issues such as the use of force at
juvenile detention centers, the effects of isolation on juveniles
or mental health care needs of minor detainees. The sheriff's
experts, on the other hand, had firsthand law enforcement and
corrections experience and had a history of supervising, treating
and interacting with juveniles, according to the ruling.
As for the class's argument concerning rehabilitative services,
the judge said the sheriff has no constitutional duty to
"rehabilitate" a pre-trial juvenile detainee, who has not yet been
convicted of any crime. The role of short-term detention is to
keep both the detainee and the community safe while the juvenile
is awaiting trial, Merryday said.
The class also failed to show that the sheriff deliberately
understaffed the detention center or that the facility was
inadequately staffed, creating a substantial risk of harm to the
detainees, the opinion states.
The court pointed out that Corizon nurses, who are available round
the clock at the detention center, are trained in suicide
prevention and identifying mental health needs.
"During the approximately two years at issue in this action, no
juvenile died; only two hospital cases occurred, each treated
promptly; and no evidence exists of any serious harm to anyone or
any substantial risk of serious harm to anyone owing to any policy
or practice or any deliberate indifference to that policy or
practice by the Sheriff or Corizon," Merryday added.
Moreover, the judge said, recent changes at the juvenile facility,
such as the installation of additional cameras for monitoring and
improvement of holding areas, render some of the class's claims
moot.
Among other things, the defendants have made continuous efforts to
improve mental health care for detainees. Now each juvenile
detainee receives a mental health evaluation within a few days
after admission, and high-risk cases are referred for additional
mental health assessment, according to the ruling.
The plaintiffs' claims of delay or denial of health care are
unsupported, as are their claims that juveniles suffered from
post-traumatic stress disorder or other injuries as a result of
inadequate mental health care while in detention, the court
concluded.
Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.
FOODS OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Fails to Pay OT, "Ocasio" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Oquendo Ocasio and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Foods Of South Florida, Inc. d/b/a Mr. Mike's
Grocery Store, Carolina Kattoura, and Michael Kattoura, Case No.
1:15-cv-21797 (S.D. Fla., May 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate Mr. Mike's Grocery Store in Dade
County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
purchasers of ForceField Energy, Inc. (securities from September
16, 2013 through April 15, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for ForceField investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the ForceField class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-576.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
According to the lawsuit, Defendants falsely stated and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) articles issued by independent authors
touting the Company were in fact paid promoters hired by the
Company; (2) ForceField's management reviewed these so-called
independent articles before publication; and (3) members of
ForceField's management have troubling histories with fraudulent
companies. When the true details entered the market, the suit
claims that investors suffered damages.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 16, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
FRESH MARKET: Faces FLSA Lawsuit in Connecticut Court
-----------------------------------------------------
The Fresh Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 25, 2015, that the Company is party to a
lawsuit that was filed against in U.S. District Court in
Connecticut.
The Company said, "We are party to a lawsuit that was filed
against us in U.S. District Court in Connecticut alleging that the
manner in which we implemented and applied the fluctuating
workweek method for calculating overtime due to our department
managers violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The
complaint purports to state a collective action on behalf of a
class of department managers in stores in states in which we use
the fluctuating workweek method of compensation. We believe that
the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend ourselves in this proceeding. At this time, we cannot
predict whether the Court will certify a collective action, how it
will rule on the merits of the claim, and/or the scope of the
potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should we
ultimately be found liable in this matter, our liability could
have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for
the period or periods in which it is incurred."
G & E FLORIDA: "Almazan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Almazan, a/k/a Alfredo Jimenez, a/k/a Antonio Montano, and
others similarly-situated v. G & E Florida Contractors, LLC and
Enrique Hersman, Case No. 1:15-cv-21786-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 12,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a a Florida limited liability
company which provides building and construction services to
locations within Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
DANIEL T FELD P.A.
20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 923-5899
E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com
- and -
Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
Telephone: (305) 448-9292
Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com
GENVEC INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss in "Garnitschnig" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genvec, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court has denied the
Company's and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss in the
Garnitschnig action as to all claims except for the claim for
corporate waste.
The Company said, "On March 12, 2012, a putative shareholder
derivative action was commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland against certain current and
former members of our Board of Directors and the Company as a
nominal defendant. The case was styled Garnitschnig v. Horovitz,
et al. and generally arose out of the matters alleged to underlie
the securities action. The plaintiff, who purported to bring the
action derivatively on behalf of the Company, originally alleged
that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties,
wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched by the receipt
of compensation while serving as our directors. Pursuant to the
Court's order dated April 5, 2013, the Garnitschnig case was
stayed pending a decision on the motions to dismiss filed in the
Shah action. On October 2, 2013, the parties entered into a
stipulation confirming that the stay of the Garnitschnig action
was lifted and providing that, if the plaintiff elected to
continue with the action, he would file an Amended Complaint on or
before November 26, 2013."
"On November 1, 2013, the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action
filed an Amended Verified Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint (the Amended Complaint) that supersedes the previous
Complaint and asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, waste of corporate assets and alleged violations of
the duty of candor. The plaintiff, who now purported to bring the
Amended Complaint both derivatively and as a shareholder class
action, alleged that certain current and former members of the
Board of Directors exceeded their authority under the Company's
2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the 2011 Plan) by exceeding certain
limits applicable to both stock options and restricted stock. The
Amended Complaint further alleged that the Company's Proxy
Statement was materially false and misleading for failing to
disclose the alleged violations of the 2011 Plan. The Amended
Complaint sought, among other things, an unspecified amount of
damages.
"On November 1, 2013, the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action
also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to postpone
the Company's 2013 annual meeting unless and until certain
disclosures were made to the Company's shareholders regarding the
2011 Plan. On November 20, 2013, the Court denied that motion in
its entirety. The Company and the individual defendants then filed
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint on January 27, 2014. On
September 5, 2014, the Court denied the Company's and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss as to all claims except
for the claim for corporate waste, holding that the Amended
Complaint adequately alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty
and breach of the duty of candor against the Board of Directors,
and claims for unjust enrichment against certain current and
former officer and directors."
GENVEC INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in "Galitsis" Held
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genvec, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court scheduled a
hearing on May 6, 2015 to consider whether to enter an order of
final approval on the settlement in the Galitsis action.
On October 17, 2014, a second putative class and derivative action
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland styled Galitsis v. Swirsky, et al., Case No. 14-cv-3265.
The Galitsis Complaint contains the same allegations and asserts
the same claims as those in the Garnitschnig Amended Complaint
(except for the dismissed corporate waste claim). Shortly after
the Galitsis action was filed, counsel for the plaintiff (who was
also counsel for the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action)
voluntarily dismissed the Garnitschnig action.
On or about November 3, 2014, the parties to the Galitsis action
reached an agreement in principle set forth in a Settlement Term
Sheet to settle the Galitsis action. Subsequently, on January 23,
2015, the parties executed and filed with the Court a Stipulation
of Settlement embodying terms previously set forth in the
Settlement Term Sheet.
In connection with the settlement, the Company put forward
proposals at its annual meeting held on December 5, 2014 to ratify
awards made pursuant to the 2011 Plan. The parties also agreed in
connection with the settlement that the Company would follow
certain corporate governance policies. The stipulation of
settlement is subject to certain customary conditions, including
court approval.
On March 12, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement of the Galitsis action and
scheduled a hearing on May 6, 2015 to consider whether to enter an
order of final approval. If the court approves the settlement, the
settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or could have
been brought in the Galitsis action, including all claims related
to awards made pursuant to the 2011 Plan.
The Company and the individual defendants vigorously deny all
liability with respect to the claims alleged in the Galitsis
action. However, the Company considered it desirable that the
action be settled to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully
and finally resolve the settled claims. The settlement, including
any award of attorneys' fees or expenses, is contingent upon court
approval. As such, the amount of possible loss or range of loss,
if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company does not
believe that, based on currently available information, the
outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition.
GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Orders Records in Probiotic False Ad Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger at Law360.com reports that Baby food maker Gerber
Products Co. won its bid in New Jersey federal court to compel the
plaintiffs in a putative class action accusing the company of
falsely advertising the health benefits of its probiotic baby
formula to hand over medical records of the children for whom the
plaintiffs say the formula was purchased.
The consumer-protection class action claims Gerber's packaging and
marketing falsely promoted its infant and child formula and cereal
products as containing "probiotic" bacteria with immune system
benefits misleading consumers who say studies show the benefits do
not exist.
Gerber had requested the plaintiffs produce medical records for
the children to whom the plaintiffs provided the probiotic
products related to "digestive system, immune system, infections,
diarrhea, stool consistency, colic, regurgitation, restlessness,
vomiting" and other related health issues, according to the
decision.
However, the plaintiffs objected to this discovery request arguing
it was "overly broad" and not connected to the discovery of
admissible evidence and that the information is privileged under
the physician-patient privilege.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor did not agree, granting
Gerber's motion to compel after finding that the medical records
were relevant and not subject to the physician-client privilege.
The plaintiffs had contended that their claims are based on the
false advertising of the products, which harmed the purchaser of
the products, not on the personal injury of the children,
according to their brief in opposition. They argued that the
question is really whether Gerber's products provided the benefits
claimed or not, which can be "based on scientific studies and
expert testimony on a generalized basis, like any other question
of science," according to their brief.
But the magistrate judge said that "there is a legitimate need for
medical records as there is no other source that could test the
actual effectiveness of the products that claim to produce immune
system health. Proof in the form of scientific studies and expert
testimony may not be sufficient, actual facts or the lack thereof
may be essential to either party in proof presentation to the
trier of fact."
The magistrate further said that depositions will not be an
adequate substitute for the actual records since they are "prone
to subjective and selective recollection."
"Under these circumstances, this court will not close that door by
preempting use of information that could lead to admissible
evidence," the magistrate's decision said. "The medical records
are legitimately necessary."
The suit, consolidated from five separate actions filed across the
country, alleges Gerber's Good Start Protect infant formula, Good
Start Protect formula for children aged 9 months through 24
months, and DHA & Probiotic Cereal Single Grain varieties in
oatmeal and rice flavors do not provide the advertised immune
system benefits and are not equivalent to breast milk in
nutritional value, according to court documents.
The New Jersey federal trimmed the suit tossing fraud claims under
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act saying the plaintiffs had failed
to identify a comparable product and its cost that would allow the
court to find the difference in value between the product as
promised and the product as allegedly received.
Plaintiffs class counsel and counsel for the defendants were not
immediately available for comment.
The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Cecchi and Lindsey H.
Taylor of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Timothy
G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- and Thomas J. O'Reardon II --
to'reardon@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Scott A.
Bursor and Joseph I. Marchese of Bursor & Fisher PA, Jamie E.
Weiss and Richard J. Burke of Quantum Legal LLC, Christopher M.
Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- , Joseph P. Guglielmo --
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- and Erin Green Comite --
ecomote@scott-scott.com -- of Scott & Scott LLP, Antonio Vozzolo
-- avozzolo@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP and Ronald A.
Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- of the Law Offices of
Ronald A. Marron .
Gerber is represented by Carmine R. Zarlenga --
czarlenga@mayerbrown.com -- Adam Hudes -- ahudes@mayerbrown.com --
and Dale J. Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP
and Scott A. Ohnegian -- sohnegian@riker.com -- of Riker Danzig
Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP.
The case is Thomas v. Gerber Products Co. et al., case number
2:12-cv-00835, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
GLOBAL TEL: Accused of Defrauding Customers on Inmate Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Disney, writing for Daily Report Online, writes that an
attorney with the DeKalb public defender's office has sued a
telecommunications firm that provides prison inmate calling
services throughout the state, claiming the company routinely
defrauds inmates, their families and their attorneys by draining
accounts of funds that were intended to pay for inmates' calls.
The suit, filed April 3 on behalf of criminal defense lawyer
Benson Githieya -- bkgithie@dekalbcountyga.gov -- contends that
Global Tel Link, which markets itself as GTL, converts calling
accounts set up by families, friends or lawyers of inmates to
"inactive" status if customers do not receive an inmate call
within a 90-day period. The company then, without notice, drains
the accounts of any unused funds, the suit claims.
Githieya's suit, for which he is seeking class action status, is
the second one filed against GTL in federal court in Atlanta this
year. A suit filed in February by Maryum Cooper -- a California
woman whose brother was jailed for two years in DeKalb County --
claims that GTL violated federal communications laws by ignoring
federal rate caps, overcharging Georgia customers and paying
commissions to state- and county-run jails and prisons in return
for exclusive contracts. At the time, GTL had an exclusive
contract with the DeKalb County Sheriff's Office to provide inmate
calling services at the county jail, Cooper's suit says.
Cooper's suit, also filed as a potential class action, claims that
after the Federal Communications Commission ruled in 2013 that GTL
had overbilled customers in violation of federal law, the company
lowered its rates but never reimbursed the customers it had
overbilled.
Githieya could not be reached for comment. But Decatur lawyer
James Radford, one of two attorneys representing the plaintiffs in
both suits, told the Daily Report that GTL is "the No. 1 provider
of inmate calling services nationwide," and that the company has
exclusive contracts to provide inmate calling services with the
Georgia Department of Corrections as well as a number of county
sheriff's offices throughout the state.
Radford said the company secures monopoly contracts with the
state's jails and prisons, then charges inmates and their families
exorbitant rates that they have no choice but to pay. To secure
those monopoly contracts, the lawyer said, GTL pays a substantial
percentage of its revenues to the agencies that operate them in
what amounts to a kickback.
"That's one of the reasons they are charging these exorbitant
rates," he said of GTL. "They are basically passing on the cost
of that kickback to the consumer."
A GTL spokeswoman could not be reached for comment. Michael King,
an attorney at Greenberg Traurig who is defending GTL in Cooper's
suit, withheld comment until he could contact his client. No
attorney has filed a notice of appearance on GTL's behalf in
Githieya's case.
A spokeswoman for the state Corrections Department, which is not
named as a defendant in the suits, could not be reached.
Githieya's suit claims that in March 2014, the lawyer opened and
funded an account with GTL's inmate calling services for a
specified amount of telephone time with inmates at an unnamed
facility. But from March 12, 2014, through June 10, 2014,
Githieya was not contacted by any inmates at that facility. On
June 10, 2014, GTL classified the account as "inactive" and
removed the funds from the account, according to the lawyer's
suit.
The suit also contends that GTL violated Georgia's civil
racketeering statutes and federal communications laws by luring
customers into funding calling service accounts under false
pretenses, knowing that it intended to lay claim to the funds for
its own use in as little as 90 days.
Cooper's suit claims that GTL, as far back as 2008, charged
Georgia consumers participating in interstate calls with inmates a
$3.95 connection surcharge, plus 89 cents a minute per call. In a
final rule issued Nov. 13, 2013, the FCC determined that the
Georgia rates were, according to the complaint, "the highest in
the nation" as well as "grossly excessive relative to the cost of
providing such services" in violation of federal law.
The FCC also held that a major contributing factor to the
exorbitant rates were the commissions that GTL paid to the state's
jail and prison operators in order to secure the business.
After issuing its findings, the FCC imposed a rate cap of 25 cents
a minute for collect calls and 21 cents a minute for prepaid
calls. GTL, Cooper's complaint said, subsequently modified its
calling services contracts in Georgia. However, according to the
complaint, those who had paid GTL the higher rates prior to the
FCC's determination that they violated federal law were never
reimbursed by GTL.
Cooper spent about $2,000 on telephone calls with her brother, who
was incarcerated in the DeKalb County Jail from November 2012
through December 2014, her complaint says. According to Cooper's
complaint, GTL paid the DeKalb County Sheriff's Office a
commission in excess of 58 percent of all fees it collected in
return for its monopoly contract. Cooper's suit seeks at least $5
million in reimbursements on behalf of a potential class that
could include hundreds, if not thousands, of GTL customers. A
spokesman for the DeKalb County Sheriff's Office, which is not a
defendant in the cases, could not be reached for comment.
"We think this is a nationwide thing," said Decatur lawyer Andrew
Lynch, Radford's co-counsel in both cases. "We think it's
happening every day in 48 states."
"These companies literally have a captive audience," Radford said.
"A person in prison has no other way to have telephone
communications with a loved one except through this company. They
can basically charge whatever they want to charge. It's a real
hardship on families who are institutionalized."
Lynch said that when he first was told by GTL customers that GTL
was draining accounts of unused funds after 90 days, "I didn't
think it could really be going on. . . . But that's exactly what
they do."
Lynch also said that GTL's customer contracts include no
provisions that allow it to label accounts inactive and then strip
them of funds. "Their own contract doesn't give them the ability
to do this," he said.
GOLD RESOURCE: Tenth Circuit Affirmed District Court's Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Resource Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decision dismissing a class action lawsuit.
A securities class action lawsuit subsequently captioned In re
Gold Resource Corporation. Securities Litigation, No.1:12-cv-02832
was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
naming us and certain of our current and former officers and
directors as defendants on October 25, 2012.
The Company said, "The complaint alleged violations of federal
securities laws by us and certain of our officers and directors.
On July 15, 2013, the federal district court granted our motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. On January 16, 2015, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the
District Court's decision. While the securities class action
lawsuit may be subject to rehearing or appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court within a specified time period, we believe the
plaintiff does not intend to take any further action regarding
this lawsuit."
GOOGLE INC: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Svenson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in
part Defendants' motion to dismiss the operative first complaint
in the case captioned ALICE SVENSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-04080-BLF (N.D. Cal., San
Jose Division).
A putative class action was filed by Alice Svenson who complained
that Google, Inc. and Google Payment Corporation failed to honor
the written privacy policies governing their electronic payment
service, Google Wallet. Svenson asserted claims for (1) breach of
contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, (3) violation of the Stored Communications Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 2701, (4) violation of the Stored Communications
Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2702, and (5) violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the operative first amended
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack
of Article III standing and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
In an Order dated April 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/YWPi3O
from Leagle.com, Judge Freeman:
-- denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of Article
III standing
-- granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state
a claim as to Claims 3 and 4 without leave to amend, and
denied as to Claims 1, 2, and 5; and
-- ordered Defendants to file an answer on or before April
16, 2015.
Alice Svenson, Plaintiff, represented by Kathryn S. Diemer, Diemer
Whitman & Cardosi, LLP, Alex Stepick, IV, Stepick Law, LLC,
Dominique Ann Sopko, Diemer, Whitman and Cardosi, Elizabeth
Roberson-Young, Progressive Law Group, LLC, Frank Jablonski & Mark
Anthony Bulgarelli, Progressive Law Group LLC.
Google, Inc., and Google Payment Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Susan D. Fahringer -- Sfahringer@perkinscoie.com --
Perkins Coie LLP, Charles Christian Sipos --
Csipos@perkinscoie.com -- Sunita B Bali -- Sbali@perkinscoie.com
-- Perkins Coie.
GOOGLE INC: Settlement in Referrer Header Privacy Case Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila granted the Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Motion for Attorneys
Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards in the case captioned IN RE
GOOGLE REFERRER HEADER PRIVACY LITIGATION, CASE NO. 5:10-CV-04809-
EJD (N.D. Cal., San Jose Division)
Plaintiffs argued that Google operated its search engine in a
manner that violated their Internet privacy rights by disclosing
personal information to third parties.
The court previously granted the parties' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, certified a settlement class, and
appointed counsel. Written objections to the settlement were
filed by Kim Morrison, Davide Weiner, Melissa Holyoak, Theodore H.
Frank, and Cameron Jan. A hearing addressing final approval was
held on August 29, 2014.
In an Order dated March 31, 2015 which is available at
http://is.gd/pdjSYDfrom Leagle.com, the court found that the
terms of the settlement, including the awards of attorneys fees,
costs, and incentive awards, is fair, adequate, and reasonable;
and it satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the
fairness and adequacy factors.
Paloma Gaos, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Katherine Schmidlin,
Aschenbrener Law, Bradley Michael Baglien --
bradley.baglien@wilmerhale.com -- Edelson McGuire LLC, Charles
Hyunchul Jung, Nassiri & Jung LLP, Christopher Lillard Dore --
cdore@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Kassra Powell Nassiri, Nassiri &
Jung LLP, Michael James Aschenbrener -- mja@aschenbrenerlaw.com --
Aschenbrener Law P.C. & Michael Patrick Dillingham --
info@dillinghamlawgroup.com -- Dillingham Law Group.
Gabriel Priyev, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Stepick, IV,
Stepick Law, LLC, Ilan Chorowsky, Progressive Law Group LLC,
Kathryn S. Diemer, Diemer Whitman & Cardosi, LLP, Mark Anthony
Bulgarelli, Progressive Law Group LLC & Peter John Iannuzzi,
Diemer, Whitman and Cardosi, LLP.
Google Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward D. Johnson --
wjohnson@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Eric Butler Evans --
eevans@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Jonathan Anderson
Helfgott, Mayer Brown LLP, Jean Bastian Niehaus, O'Melveny Myers
LLP & Randall W. Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers
LLP.
Ms. Kim Morrison, Objector, represented by Matt Kurilich.
Mr. David Weiner, Objector, represented by Michael Frederick
Creamer, Jr.
Theodore H Frank, Objector, represented by Theodore Harold Frank.
Melissa Holyoak, Objector, represented by Theodore Harold Frank.
Cameron Jan, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer --
darrell.palmer@palmerlegalteam.com
HAMMOUD & SAMAHA: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Savannah Walker v. Hammoud & Samaha, LLC, Samaha & Hammoud, LLC,
Yafa & Nermeen, LLC, and Mohammad Samaha, Case No. 2:15-cv-11699-
DML-RSW (E.D. Mich., May 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fee pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate Jimmy John's restaurants in
Michigan.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
155 2nd Street, Suite 4
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Telephone: (201) 630-0000
E-mail: Nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
HAMN EGGERY: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Aguilar and Benito Cruz Torres, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Hamn Eggery Deli Inc. d/b/a New
York Deli, Kosfas Kaloudis, and Mike Hunt, Case No. 1:15-cv-02781
(E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a Deli located at 2109 Borden
Avenue, Long Island City, New York 10012.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
HARRIS FARMS: Gets More Time to File Settlement Approval Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone signed on May 12, 2015, a
stipulation and order in the case captioned JOSE GONZALEZ, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. HARRIS FARMS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 2
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00038-LJO-SAB.
(E.D. Cal.), which provides that:
1. The deadline for the filing of the Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement is continued from July 8, 2015 to
August 5, 2015; and
2. The hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement is continued from July 22, 2015 to August 19,
2015, at 10:00 a.m.
Defendant's counsel had a delay in providing the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA") notice requirements pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1711-1715 and thus the parties need to continue the
hearing for final settlement approval.
A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/OWdJADfrom Leagle.com.
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC, Oliver W. Wanger --
owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- Jay A. Christofferson --
jchristofferson@wjhattorneys.com -- Fresno, California, Attorneys
for Defendant HARRIS FARMS, INC.
GAINES AND GAINES, APLC, Daniel F. Gaines --
daniel@gaineslawfirm.com -- Attorneys for Plaintiff JOSE GONZALEZ.
HUNTER'S MANUFACTURING: Recalls Crossbows Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hunter's Manufacturing Company Inc., dba TenPoint CrossBow
Technologies of Mogadore, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 127,000 TenPoint and Wicked Ridge crossbows. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
After the safety has been re-engaged, the crossbows can fire under
certain circumstances if a consumer pulls the trigger, posing an
injury hazard.
This recall involves nine models of two brands of crossbows that
can be identified by their serial numbers, which are located on
the left side of the barrel of the crossbow below the trigger box.
The TenPoint or Wicked Ridge brand name is printed on both sides
of the crossbow barrel on all models except the GT Flex. The model
name appears on both sides of the stock on all models. The GT Flex
crossbows are black. The other affected models are camouflage
patterns. One TenPoint Titan Extreme model crossbow and one Wicked
Ridge Warrior HL model crossbow were specially produced in black,
rather than the camouflage pattern that is standard for those
models. The crossbows were manufactured from 2011 to 2014.
Model Serial Number Range
----- -------------------
TenPoint Shadow Ultra-Lite: G000001-G006449
Model numbers C14018-7521 and
C14018-7522
TenPoint Turbo XLT II:
Model Numbers C12020-4920, F54796-F55233
C12020-4521, and C12020-4522 G50000-G55924
H50000-H54851
F000001-F007055
TenPoint Titan Extreme:
Model Numbers C12047-6520, G80001-G89999
C12047-6521, C12047-6522, H80000-H96243
C13047-1912, and C13047-5312 H000001-H015400
TenPoint Maverick HP:
Model Numbers C11055-3000, F41618-F41909
C11055-3521, C11055-3522, G40000-G40353
C11055-6000, C11055-6520,
C11055-6521, and C11055-6522
G40000-G40353
TenPoint GT Flex:
Model Numbers C08066-3000, F70173-F70299
C08066-3420, C08066-3421, G70000-G70151
C08066-3422, C08066-3430, H70000-H70299
C08066-3431, C08066-3432, I000001-I000452
C14066-1000, C14066-1330,
C14066-1331, and C14066-1332
TenPoint Phantom CLS-S:
Model numbers C10003-4211, F00002-F00261
C10003-4212, C10003-4221, G00001-G00156
and C10003-4222
Wicked Ridge Raider CLS:
Model numbers WR1221.6230, J000001-J000831
WR1221.6326, and WR1221.6336 V70000-V72011
W70001-W71806
Wicked Ridge Invader HP:
Model numbers WR1205.6336, K000001-K008644
WR1205.6436, and WR1205.6446 V00000-V20881
W01437-W10261
Wicked Ridge Warrior HL:
Model numbers WR1215.6330, L000001-L011095
WR1215.6430, WR1215.6440, W40000-W55874
and WR1415.1436 V40000-V52357
TenPoint has received 19 reports that arrows released from the
crossbows when the consumer pulled the trigger under certain
circumstances after the safety mechanism was re-engaged. There
have been no reported injuries.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/s2S0EN
The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Bass
Pro Shops, Cabela's, Dick's Sporting Goods, Dunham's Sports,
Gander Mountain, MC Sports, other hunting and sporting goods
stores nationwide; direct sales from TenPoint; and online at
Amazon.com, Basspro.com, Cabelas.com, dickssportinggoods.com and
other internet retailers from January 2011 to May 2015 for between
$400 and $1,800.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled crossbows.
Contact TenPoint for detailed instructions on how to inspect any
TenPoint or Wicked Ridge crossbow and instructions on how to
receive a free repair, if the crossbow poses an unexpected firing
hazard.
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the American Depository Shares of iDreamSky Technology
Limited between August 8, 2014 and March 13, 2015, inclusive,
including those investors who acquired iDreamSky ADSs pursuant or
traceable to its initial public offering commenced on or about
August 7, 2014 alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
certain of its officers.
If you purchased iDreamSky during the Class Period, you may, no
later than June 1, 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 iDreamSky Class Action,
contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com
iDreamSky licenses and operates single player mobile games and
mobile online games in the People's Republic of China.
The Complaint alleges that iDreamSky made materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about its business, operations, prospects, and performance.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that iDreamSky failed to
disclose that the company had overstated its ability to monetize
its user base and effectively integrate its distribution channels.
On March 13, 2015, after the market closed, iDreamSky lowered its
revenue guidance for fourth quarter 2014 approximately by $9.9
million USD to approximately $53 million USD. According to the
company, the revision of fourth quarter guidance is the result of
the delay of a popular game, launched on one of the company's
distribution platforms, and lower than anticipated revenues from
another game being launched simultaneously as other hit games on
the same distribution platform.
Following this news, American Depositary Shares of iDreamSky fell
$3.60, or over 33%, to close at $7.22 per share.
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.
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls PATRULL Safety Gates
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Penn., announced
a voluntary recall of about 58,000 PATRULL KLAMMA and PATRULL
SMIDIG Safety Gates in U.S. and 17,000 in Canada. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.
The friction between the wall and the pressure-mounted safety gate
is insufficient to hold the gate in its intended position, posing
a fall hazard. In addition, the lower metal bar can be a tripping
hazard.
These safety gates are white, made of steel and plastic, and
measure about 29 inches high with an adjustable width from about
29 inches to 34 inches. The gate has a spring mechanism that fits
between the two sides of the door frame to hold the gate in place.
A permanent label is attached to the metal bar at the bottom of
the safety gate containing an article number. Gates with the
following article numbers are recalled:
--- 302-265-21
--- 500-375-67
--- 501-919-50
--- 655-517-10
--- 700-989-65
--- 901-136-01
There have been 18 incidents worldwide, including three incidents
in which children have been injured as a result of falling down
stairs. No injuries have been reported in the U.S.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/z35U69
The recalled products were manufactured in Denmark and sold at KEA
stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from August 1995
through February 2015 for about $35.
Consumers should stop using the safety gate and return it to any
IKEA store for a full refund. Any PATRULL KLAMMA /SMIDIG safety
gate extensions may also be returned for a full refund. Consumers
who want to keep their PATRULL KLAMMA or SMIDIG safety gate for
limited use in a doorway between rooms or at the bottom of a
staircase can contact IKEA to receive free updated user
instructions and new adhesive warning labels to put on their
safety gate.
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of 2nd Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
InterCloud Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a class action
lawsuit.
The Company said, "In March 2014, a complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against our company, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, as
purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms, and
John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain
persons who purchased our common stock between November 5, 2013
and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleges violations by the
defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with
certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive
the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of
the purported class to purchase shares of our common stock at
artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements of a
material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary to
make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleges
that Mr. Munro and our company violated Section 20 of the Exchange
Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other
unspecified litigation costs."
"On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending
actions. The lead filed an amended complaint in January 2015
adding additional third-party defendants. We filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in late January 2015 and the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in early March 2015.
We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March
13, 2015."
IRADIMED CORPORATION: "Lam" Civil Action in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------
Iradimed Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Lam Civil Action is
presently in the very early stages of litigation.
On September 10, 2014, a Civil Action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("Lam Civil
Action"). The Lam Civil Action is a putative class action lawsuit
brought against the Company and certain individuals who are
officers and / or directors of the Company. The plaintiff is an
alleged shareholder of the Company, and seeks relief on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period from July 15, 2014 through September 2, 2014. The
complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material
information concerning the Company's compliance with FDA
regulations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that the
putative class members suffered damages as a result. The complaint
additionally alleges "control person" liability against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Lam Civil Action is presently in the
very early stages of litigation. The Company disputes the
plaintiff's allegations and theories of liability, and intends to
defend the case vigorously.
"We have not accrued for any loss related to this matter as we
believe that any such loss is not probable or estimable," the
Company said.
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Dead Sea Works Responds to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Dead Sea Works has filed
its response to the motion to certify a class action.
The Company said, "On September 21, 2014, we received a motion
submitted to the District Court in Israel to certify a class
action against our subsidiary, Dead Sea Works. According to the
motion, the plaintiff is a farmer who has bought and currently
buys potash in Israel, which is produced by Dead Sea Works, for
fertilization purposes and seeks to represent a group of class
members that would include all purchasers of potash or products
produced with potash in Israel from 2006, when potash prices were
deregulated, through the date of the action. The plaintiff alleges
that Dead Sea Works charged an excessive price for potash,
contrary to the Israeli anti-trust laws, and seeks damages in the
amount of approximately NIS 96.4 million (approximately $24.8
million). The total sales of potash in Israel in 2014 to the
customers who, to the best of our understanding, constitute the
group described above, account for less than 1% of our total
sales in that year. In February 2015, DSW filed its response to
the motion to certify the class action. In the estimation of the
Company and its legal advisors, the chances that the class action
will be certified are less than 50% and, accordingly, no provision
was recorded in the financial statements."
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Subsidiaries Named as Party to Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's
subsidiaries are parties to one legal proceeding filed by nine
plaintiffs who are requesting certification of their claim as a
class action.
The Company said, "During the 1990s, a claim was filed against
some of our subsidiaries by plaintiffs from various countries who
worked mostly as banana plantation workers, who allegedly were
injured by exposure to di bromo chloropropane ("DBCP") produced
many years ago by a number of manufacturers, including large
chemical companies and, according to the plaintiffs, some of our
subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2014, our subsidiaries are
parties to one legal proceeding filed by nine plaintiffs who are
requesting certification of their claim as a class action. The
claim is for bodily injury and therefore the amount of claimed
damages has not been stated. In the opinion of management and our
legal advisors, it is not possible to estimate the results of the
above claims. Nonetheless, it is estimated that our overall
exposure will not exceed $20 million. No provision was included in
our financial statements in respect of the aforesaid claim."
J. C. PENNEY: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss "Marcus" Case Completed
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that briefing on the motion to
dismiss the Class Action Securities Litigation has been completed.
The Company said, "The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth
H. Hannah are parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Texas, Tyler Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26,
2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the
Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused
our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The
consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in
November, 2014."
J. C. PENNEY: Marcus Plaintiff Opposes Appointment in "Johnson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiff in the
Marcus lawsuit filed an opposition to the motion for appointment
of lead plaintiff in the Nathan Johnson case.
On August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a purported
class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and
Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Texas, Tyler Division. The Company said, "the suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other
than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through
September 26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff's lawsuit generally
mirrors the allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit discussed
above, and seeks similar relief. On November 11, 2014, defendants
filed an unopposed motion to consolidate this lawsuit with the
Marcus lawsuit. On November 18, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff. On December 5, 2014, the lead
plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion for appointment of lead plaintiff."
J. C. PENNEY: Filed Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the ERISA Class Action Litigation.
The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation,
Inc., and certain present and former members of Corporation's
Board of Directors have been sued in a purported class action
complaint by plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, which
was filed on July 8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the
defendants violated Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the
J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock
Ownership Plan (the "Plan"). The class period is alleged to be
between November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege
that they and others who invested in or held Company stock in the
Plan during this period were injured because defendants allegedly
made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding
the Company's financial condition and business prospects that
caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices. The complaint seeks class certification,
declaratory relief, a constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged
losses to the Plan, actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
on November 7, 2014.
"We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final
resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.
J. C. PENNEY: Ill. Court Has Yet to Rule on Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Illinois court has
not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation,
Inc., is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP
employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the
present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional
claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on
behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1,
2004 to the present. After the court granted JCP's motion to
transfer the Illinois claims, those claims are now pending in a
separate action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, entitled Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. Plaintiffs in
both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, to certify
these actions on behalf of all employees in California and
Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On December 17,
2014, the California court granted plaintiffs' request for class
certification. The Illinois court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance
can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we
believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.
KIND LLC: Faces "O'Brien" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert O'Brien, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kind, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03699-WHP
(S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and
deceptive labeling of its KIND Bars as being healthy and made with
All Natural ingredients.
Kind, LLC is a manufacturer and global distributor of whole nut
and fruit bars and snacks targeted at health conscious consumers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
768 Plandome Road
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (516) 627-5610
Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: www.attomeyzim.com
tom@attorneyzim.com
adam@attorneyzim.com
KRAFT FOODS: Faces "Meyer" Suit in E.D. Va. Over Heinz Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Meyer Ira Fbo Robert Meyer, On Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00289-HEH (E.D. Va., May 12, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the
planned acquisition of the Company by H.J. by means of an unfair
process and for inadequate consideration.
Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is a consumer packaged goods company which
maintains its principal executive offices at Three Lakes Drive,
Northfield, Illinois, 60093.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth Kathleen Tripodi, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com
- and -
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302)295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
KRAFT FOODS: Faces "Wallace" Suit Over Wheat Price Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wallace, Nathan Wallace, Kevin Brown, and Joseph Caprino,
and other similarly situated individuals v. Kraft Foods Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04226 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2015),
asserts that the Defendants unlawfully and intentionally
manipulated the prices of cash wheat and the prices of the
December 2011 wheat futures contracts traded on the Chicago Board
of Trade.
Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is one of North America's largest consumer
packaged food and beverage companies, with headquarters in
Northfield, Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
Donald L. Sawyer, Esq.
2201 Waukegan Road , Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4 500
Facsimile: (224) 632-4 521
E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
dsawyer@fklmlaw.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 3 39-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
hmsilton@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
111 West Second Street
Jamestown, NY 14701
Telephone: (716) 664-2967
Facsimile: (716) 664-2983
E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net
KRAFT FOODS: Wheat Price Manipulation Hurt Traders, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that Kraft Foods Group Inc.
and Mondelez International Inc. are being sued in a proposed class
action on behalf of wheat futures and options traders for
allegedly manipulating the grain's price.
The lawsuit was filed by futures trader Richard Dennis in the
federal court in Chicago, eight days after the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission sued both companies. In that case, the
CFTC alleged that the former Kraft Foods Inc. in late 2011 bought
$90 million of wheat futures despite never intending to take
possession of the grain.
The regulator said it did this to depress prices in the cash wheat
market, where sellers might believe the companies needed less
wheat, and inflate futures prices. Kraft's strategy led to more
than $5.4 million of illegal gains, the CFTC said.
In the complaint, Mr. Dennis raised similar claims, and accused
Kraft and Mondelez of manipulating prices of cash wheat and wheat
futures contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade from 2003 to
January 2014, boosting revenue and trading profit.
"While these illicit profits benefited defendants' bottom line,
they caused harm to class members who transacted in CBOT wheat
futures contracts at artificial prices," Mr. Dennis said.
Kraft had no immediate comment. Mondelez spokeswoman Valerie
Moens declined to comment. Both companies have indicated that
Mondelez would bear most costs of the CFTC case, and that the
outcome would not be material to either's results.
A lawyer for Dennis did not immediately respond to requests for
additional comment.
The companies are defendants in both lawsuits because the alleged
suspicious trades occurred before Kraft Foods Inc. in 2012 split
in two.
Mondelez now houses snack foods such as Oreos, Wheat Thins and
Ritz crackers, while Kraft sells its namesake cheese products,
Oscar Mayer deli meats and Maxwell House coffee.
Kraft agreed to sell itself to H.J. Heinz Co, which is owned by
Brazilian firm 3G Capital and Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway
Inc.
The case is Dennis v. Kraft Foods Group Inc et al, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-03155.
LA-Z-BOY: Recalls Power Reclining Furniture Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
La-Z-Boy Incorporated of Monroe, Mich., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,600 PowerReclineXRw. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
When reclined, the furniture can tip forward if the consumer exits
without bringing the chair to an upright position, posing a fall
hazard.
The recalled power reclining furniture involves three series of
the PowerReclineXRw: P16, 32P and 39P. The P16 series is a single-
seat recliner; the 32P series is a loveseat recliner; and the 39P
series is a loveseat with a middle console. The furniture's back
and leg rest are raised and lowered electronically by pressing
buttons built into the furniture's side or on an optional attached
controller. All models are upholstered in a variety of fabrics or
leather products. The series and style numbers are printed on a
white label stapled to the front rail behind the leg rest or the
underside of the leg rest. The first three characters of the
number will be P16, 32P or 39P, followed by the style number.
Recalled recliners include:
P16 PowerReclineXRw Recliners
SERIES STYLE NAME DIMENSIONS
------ ----- ---- ----------
P16 366 Reese Power-Recline- Overall: 41.50" H x
XRw Recliner 40.00" W x 38.50" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 18.50"
W x 21.00" D
P16 403 Vail Power-Recline- Overall: 40.50" H x
XRw Recliner 32.00" W x 36.00" D
Seat: 18.00" H x 17.50"
W x 19.50" D
P16 502 Joshua Power-Recline- Overall: 41.50" H x
XRw Recliner 39.00" W x 45.00" D
Seat: 20.50" H x 23.00"
W x 23.00" D
P16 508 Coleman Power-Recline- Overall: 40.50" H x
XRw Recliner 32.00" W x 36.50" D
Seat: 19.00" H x 19.50"
W x 19.00" D
P16 512 Pinnacle Power-Recline Overall: 43.50" H x
-XRw Recliner 38.00" W x 40.00" D
Seat: 22.00" H x 20.00"
W x 22.50" D
P16 515 Lancer Power-Recline- Overall: 43.00" H x
XRw Recliner 38.00" W x 42.00" D
Seat: 19.50" H x 20.50"
W x 20.50" D
P16 516 Mason Power-Recline- Overall: 41.00" H x
XRw Recliner 34.00" W x 37.00" D
Seat: 19.00" H x 19.00"
W x 20.00" D
P16 521 James Power-Recline- Overall: 42.50" H x
XRw Recliner 39.00" W x 38.00" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 21.50"
W x 21.00" D
P16 528 Larson Power-Recline Overall: 42.00" H x
XRw Recliner 37.00" W x 38.00" D
Seat: 18.5" H x 20.00"
W x 21.00" D
P16 530 Greyson Power-Recline- Overall: 42.00" H x
XRw Recliner x 37.50" W x 41.00" D
Seat: 20.50" H x 20.00"
W x 23.00" D
P16 535 Conner Power-Recline- Overall: 41.00" H x
XRw Recliner 38.00" W x 39.00" D
Seat: 19.50" H x 21.00"
W x 20.00" D
P16 537 Hayes Power-Recline- Overall: 40.00" H x
XRw Recliner 37.50" W x 37.00" D
Seat: 19.50" H x 21.00"
W x 20.50" D
P16 563 Gibson Power-Recline- Overall: 44.00" H x
XRw Recliner 40.00" W x 43.00" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 17.00"
W x 22.50" D
P16 572 Lawrence Power-Recline- Overall: 41.50" H x
XRw Recliner 38.50" W x 37.00" D
Seat: 18.50" H x 19.50"
W x 19.00" D
P16 582 Maverick Power-Recline- Overall: 42.00" H x
XRw Recliner 38.00" W x 39.00" D
Seat: 21.00" H x 19.00"
W x 22.00" D
P16 701 Briggs Power-Recline- Overall: 41.50" H x
XRw Recliner 39.00" W x 38.00" D
Seat: 19.00" H x 21.00"
W x 21.00" D
P16 702 Easton Power-Recline- Overall: 41.00" H x
XRw Recliner 36.50" W x 38.00" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 22.00"
W x 21.00" D
P16 705 Gabe Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 42.00" H x
Recliner 36.00" W x 39.50" D
Seat: 19.00" H x 19.50"
W x 20.50" D
P16 707 Maxx Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 40.50" H x
Recliner 33.50" W x 38.50" D
Seat: 19.00" H x 23.50"
W x 20.00" D
P16 708 Forester Power-Recline- Overall: 40.50" H x
XRw Recliner 36.00" W x 38.00" D
Seat: 19.00" H x 19.00"
W x 22.00" D
P16 709 Jasper Power-Recline- Overall: 42.00" H x
XRw Recliner 40.00" W x 38.50" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 21.50"
W x 20.00" D
P16 711 Asher Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 41.50" H x
Recliner 41.00" W x 41.00" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 21.50"
W x 21.50" D
P16 714 Jace Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 41.00" H x
Recliner 40.00" W x 38.50" D
Seat: 19.50" H x 21.50"
W x 23.00" D
P16 735 Sullivan Power-Recline- Overall: 41.00" H x
XRw Recliner 38.50" W x 39.00" D
Seat: 21.00" H x 21.00"
W x 22.50" D
P16 740 Barrett Power-Recline- Overall: 42.00" H x
XRw Recliner 40.00" W x 39.50" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 21.00"
W x 22.00" D
P16 745 Carter Power-Recline- Overall: 42.00" H x
XRw Recliner 39.00" W x 40.00" D
Seat: 19.00" H x 21.00"
W x 22.00" D
P16 746 Duncan Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 41.00" H x
Recliner 37.00" W x 40.00" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 22.00"
W x 23.50" D
P16 765 Rowan Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 41.00" H x
Recliner 34.00" W x 39.00" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 22.50"
W x 21.00" D
P16 770 Ace Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 41.00" H x
Recliner 35.00" W x 39.00" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 22.00"
W x 20.00" D
P16 801 Amelia Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 40.50" H x
Recliner 33.50" W x 38.00" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 21.25"
W x 21.00" D
P16 PowerReclineXRw Tall Base Recliners
SERIES STYLE NAME DIMENSIONS
------ ----- ---- ----------
P16 519 Astor Power-Recline- Overall : 44.50" H x
XRw Recliner 37.50" W x 42.50" D
Seat : 21.00" H x
21.00" W x 21.00" D
P16 716 Logan Power-Recline- Overall : 43.50" H x
XRw Recliner 38.00" W x 40.00" D
Seat : 22.00" H x
20.00" W x 22.50" D
P16 PowerReclineXRw Short Seat Recliners
SERIES STYLE NAME DIMENSIONS
------ ----- ---- ----------
P16 798 Impulse Power-Recline- Overall : 39.00" H x
XRw Recliner 30.00" W x 37.00" D
Seat: 19.00" H x 23.00"
W x 19.50" D
P16 799 Harbor Town Power- Overall: 41.00" H x
Recline-XRw Recliner 30.00" W x 37.00" D
Seat: 19.00" H x 23.00"
W x 19.50" D
32P PowerReclineXRw Loveseats
SERIES STYLE NAME DIMENSIONS
------ ----- ---- ----------
32P 512 Pinnacle Power-Recline Overall: 41.00" H x
-XRw Full Reclining 57.00" W x 38.00" D
Loveseat Seat: 20.00" H x 44.50"
W x 20.00" D
32P 582 Maverick Power-Recline Overall: 42.50" H x
-XRw Full Reclining 64.00" W x 39.00" D
Loveseat Seat: 22.00" H x 45.00"
W x 22.50" D
32P 746 Duncan Power-Recline- Overall: 41.50" H x
XRw Full Reclining 63.00" W x 41.00" D
Loveseat Seat : 21.00" H x
47.00" W x 23.00" D
32P 765 Rowan Power-Recline- Overall: 41.00" H x
XRw Full Reclining 61.00" W x 37.00" D
Loveseat Seat: 22.00" H x
47.50" W x 20.00" D
32P 770 Ace Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 41.50" H x
Full Reclining Loveseat 62.00" W x 38.50" D
Seat: 20.00" H x 47.00"
W x 21.00" D
39P PowerReclineXRw Loveseats with Console
SERIES STYLE NAME DIMENSIONS
------ ----- ---- ----------
39P 582 Maverick Power-Recline Overall: 42.50" H x
-XRw Full Reclining 79.00" W x 39.00" D
Loveseat w/ Middle Seat: 22.00" H x 60.00"
Console W x 22.50" D
39P 746 Duncan Power-Recline- Overall: 41.50" H x
XRw Full Reclining 78.00" W x 41.00" D
Loveseat w/ Middle Seat: 21.00" H x 62.00"
Console W x 23.00" D
39P 770 Ace Power-Recline-XRw Overall: 41.50" H x
Full Reclining 76.00" W x 38.50" D
Loveseat w/ Middle Seat: 20.00" H x 61.00"
Console W x 21.00" D
La-Z-Boy has received five dealer reports of the furniture tipping
forward when the chair was in a reclined position. No injuries
have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/r6L1zF
The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at La-Z-
Boy Furniture Galleries(R) stores and independent furniture stores
nationwide from January 2015 through March 2015 for $600 to $4300.
Consumer should stop using the chair and contact the local dealer
where the chair was purchased for a refund or a repair. A service
technician will schedule a time to come to the consumer's home and
install a new part.
LIFE TIME: Block & Leviton Sues Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Life
Time Fitness Inc. and its Board of Directors. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota and docketed under 0:15-cv-01911, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all current holders of Life Time securities.
Life Time is a chain of fitness centers operating in the United
States and Canada based out of Chanhassen, Minnesota. On March
16, 2015, the Company announced its proposed acquisition (the
"Proposed Acquisition") by a consortium of investors for $72.10
per share of Life Time common stock.
The complaint alleges that, on April 3, 2015, Defendants filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a Proxy Statement
recommending the Proposed Acquisition to Company investors which
contained material omissions. Among other things, the Proxy
Statement failed to sufficiently disclose the interest of the
Company's CEO in the Proposed Acquisition and the fair market
value of the Company's real estate holdings, which make up the
bulk of Life Time's assets. As such, the Proxy Statement omits
material information necessary to make the Proxy not misleading to
investors attempting to evaluate the financial merits of the
Proposed Acquisition.
The class action seeks to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with
the Proposed Acquisition until they have complied with the federal
securities laws. In the event that the Proposed Acquisition is
consummated, the class action seeks to recover damages on behalf
of Life Time's investors.
The firm can be reached at:
Mark A. Delaney
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
E-mail: mark@blockesq.com
Tel. No: (617) 398-5600
* * *
Pamela Kufahl, writing for ClubIndustry.com, reports that despite
facing class-action lawsuits and more investigations related to
its proposed sale, Life Time Fitness, Chanhassen, MN, has received
early termination of the required waiting period under the Hart-
Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR Act).
LISA STEED: Judge Rejects Class Action Alleging Bogus DUI Stops
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that a Utah judge has rejected a
potential class-action lawsuit seeking millions in damages for
hundreds people arrested for drunken driving by disgraced former
state trooper Lisa Steed.
In a decision made public, Judge Michael Allphin ruled that the
stops were all different, so they have to be considered
individually.
Lawyers for three people arrested by Steed said a class-action
suit was the only practical way to help hundreds of people wrongly
arrested. Steed was a rising star in the department who made
hundreds of stops a year before a pattern of questionable
practices surfaced and she was fired in 2012. State lawyers say
that Steed stands by her arrests and is ready to defend them.
Plaintiff attorney Robert Sykes said he's disappointed in the
ruling and plans to appeal.
LVNV FUNDING: 6th Cir. Reverses "Michalak" Case Dismissal Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2013, Jamie Michalak filed a class action complaint
alleging that LVNV Funding, LLC ("LVNV") violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). "Beginning on or about May
2012," the complaint claims, "LVNV sent multiple dunning letters
to Ms. Michalak by way of various agents . . . In each dunning
letter, LVNV claimed a different amount . . . due," and each new
amount was "inconsistent, erratic, and arbitrary."
According to the complaint, "LVNV had no right in contract or law"
to collect these amounts. As to the class, the complaint seeks
recovery on behalf of Michalak and "all consumers who have been
dunned by LVNV for amounts to which LVNV has no[] right in
contract or law, for the one-year period preceding the date of
filing" of the complaint.
LVNV moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
and as barred by the FDCPA's statute of limitations, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692k(d), which allows courts to enforce only those
actions brought "within one year from the date on which the
violation occurs." To its motion, LVNV attached three dunning
letters to Michalak, all showing dates in May 2012 or earlier. The
district court granted the motion over Michalak's objection,
relying on LVNV's letters to hold Michalak's claim time-barred.
Michalak appealed that decision, and LVNV, for its part, asked the
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit to affirm not only
on limitations grounds but also because the complaint fails to
allege a plausible violation of the FDCPA.
The Sixth Circuit, in an opinion dated May 12, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/3aZFzifrom Leagle.com, agreed
with Michalak's view, and reversed the district court ruling.
"Michalak had no duty to 'respond to a motion to dismiss with
affirmative matter raising a triable issue of fact on an
affirmative defense.'. . . It should also go without saying that
LVNV has every reason to proffer only untimely letters in support
of its motion. The district court therefore erred in dismissing
the complaint as time-barred," ruled the Sixth Circuit.
The case is JAMIE MICHALAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LVNV FUNDING,
LLC, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-3514.
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Time to Respond to Hayes Case Adjourned
----------------------------------------------------------------
In RICHARD HAYES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR
CORP., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-01160-JST, (N.D. Cal.),
before the Court is a motion filed by MagnaChip seeking an order
adjourning the May 15, 2015, deadline to respond to the Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) until after the Court has resolved the
various uncertainties raised by the filing of a related case,
Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-01797, including
questions regarding which complaint is the operative complaint and
the status of lead counsel. Defendants Avenue Capital Management
II, L.P., Randal Klein, and Michael Elkins have joined the motion.
MagnaChip argued that if the May 15, 2015, deadline is not
adjourned, Defendants will be forced to brief duplicative motions
to dismiss, at least one of which might become moot in the event
of consolidation. It contended that this would serve neither
judicial nor party economy, and would create both an undue burden
for Defendants and a risk of inconsistent rulings. In addition,
MagnaChip suggested that any disputes regarding Lead Plaintiff
status will impair effective communication between Defendants and
Plaintiffs' counsel.
In an order entered May 7, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/G8q04Ufrom Leagle.com, District Judge Jon S. Tigar
granted the Defendants' motion.
Plaintiff's motion to coordinate and partially consolidate this
action and the related Oklahoma Police action is set for hearing
on June 11, 2015. The burden that will fall on Defendants if they
are required to respond to the SAC now, while the question of
consolidation is unsettled, exceeds any prejudice to Plaintiff
caused by adjourning the deadline for a few weeks pending the
resolution of Plaintiff's motion to coordinate and partially
consolidate this action with the related Oklahoma Police action,
held Judge Tigar.
Accordingly, Defendants' May 15, 2015, deadline to answer or
otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint is adjourned.
If the Court subsequently consolidates this action and the
Oklahoma Police action, within 14 days after the entry of an order
declining to permit a new notice period or, if a new notice period
is permitted, an order appointing Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiffs will
either (a) serve and file an amended or consolidated class action
complaint that will function as the operative complaint in this
action and in any related consolidated action; or (b) notify
counsel for Defendants that the SAC will remain the operative
complaint in this action. Defendants have 30 days after such
service or notification to answer or otherwise respond to the
designated operative complaint. If any Defendant files a motion to
dismiss that operative complaint, Plaintiffs will have 60 days to
respond to the motion(s), and defendants will have 30 days to file
their reply brief(s).
If the Court subsequently denies consolidation of this action and
the Oklahoma Police action, within 21 days of the entry of such an
order, Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to the SAC. If
any Defendant files a motion to dismiss that operative complaint,
Plaintiffs will have 60 days to respond to the motion(s), and
Defendants will have 30 days to file their reply brief(s).
MASTERCARD INC: Lawyers Object to Settlement With Target
--------------------------------------------------------
Kavita Kumar, writing for Star Tribune, reports that the lead
counsel in a federal lawsuit against Target Corp. is raising
objections to the proposed $19 million settlement the Minneapolis-
based retailer reached with MasterCard.
Minneapolis attorney Charles Zimmerman called the agreement a
"secret deal" that is offering "pennies on the dollar" to
financial institutions that suffered millions of dollars in losses
following a massive breach of Target's data systems in late 2013.
And he said it's unfair Target and MasterCard circumvented the
court process already in motion.
Mr. Zimmerman is the lead counsel on the lawsuit, which is seeking
class-action status, brought by financial institutions against
Target that is making its way through U.S. District Court in St.
Paul.
"What you have is a behind-the-curtain cheap settlement that isn't
anywhere near capturing what financial institutions have
suffered," Mr. Zimmerman said.
Mr. Zimmerman plans to bring his concerns to Judge Paul Magnuson
at a hearing on April 27.
While Mr. Zimmerman didn't have a total number of losses banks
suffered from the breach, he said the damages have been estimated
between several hundred million to up to a billion dollars. After
the breach, banks reissued cards and reimbursed consumers for
fraudulent charges, among other costs.
Earlier, Target and MasterCard announced the proposed $19 million
settlement, but it is contingent on 90 percent of eligible
MasterCard accounts that were affected by the breach to sign on to
it and to release them of any claims, including the pending
federal lawsuit. Financial institutions were given until May 20 to
endorse the proposal. If it passes, banks would be paid by the end
of the second quarter this year.
MasterCard has said that the settlement would provide banks and
credit unions a faster and more certain resolution. The company
did not respond to a request for comment to Zimmerman's
objections.
A Target spokesman said the retailer does not comment on pending
litigations.
The proposed settlement does not include Visa, which is still in
negotiations with Target and is believed to have had more accounts
affected than MasterCard.
Mr. Zimmerman, as well as the Minneapolis law firm of Chestnut
Cambronne, which are the court-appointed lead counsel on the
federal lawsuit, are urging financial institutions not to sign the
proposed settlement without better understanding their rights
through the court process.
"The banks I've talked to so far -- I haven't talked to many, but
I've talked to some -- they think this is kind of laughable," Mr.
Zimmerman said.
Mr. Zimmerman also bristled at the fact that he, and the court,
were excluded from the private negotiations that led to the
settlement.
In March, Target reached a settlement in another class-action
lawsuit related to the breach. In that case brought by consumers
whose cards were stolen, the retailer agreed to a $10 million
settlement.
The proposed $19 million settlement with MasterCard is already
included in the $252 million in costs Target has said it expects
to pay for breach-related expenses.
About 40 million customers had their payment card information
stolen after hackers infiltrated Target's point-of-sale systems.
Another 70 million people had personal information compromised.
* * *
Target is nearing a settlement with MasterCard to reimburse
financial institutions about $20 million for costs incurred from
the retailer's massive data breach in 2013, the Wall Street
Journal reported. The deal, which comes after months of
negotiations, could be announced soon, according to the Journal,
citing people familiar with the terms of negotiations.
The $20 million covers costs that banks incurred to reissue credit
cards and debit cards as a result of the breach, as well as some
of the fraud that resulted from the exposure of customer
information, the newspaper said.
In 2013, Target said at least 40 million credit cards were
compromised by the breach during the holiday shopping season, and
the attack might have resulted in the theft of personal
information, such as email addresses and telephone numbers, from
as many as 110 million people.
MasterCard will distribute the reimbursed funds to the financial
institutions that issue credit cards and debit cards under its
brand, including Citigroup, Capital One Financial and J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co, the Journal said. The Target settlement does not
include financial institutions that issue under the Visa brand.
Target is negotiating separately with Visa, the report said.
In March, according to court documents, Target agreed to pay $10
million in a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit related
to the data breach.
"We've seen the same story, but we do not comment on speculation,"
MasterCard said when asked about the Journal's report.
Visa was not available for comment, and a Target spokesperson said
the company has not made any announcements and had no comment on
the matter.
MICHAELS STORES: Job Seeker Drops Out of FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker at Law360.com reports that the lead plaintiff in a
proposed class action against Michaels Stores Inc. has dropped her
individual claims accusing the retailer of failing to properly
inform job applicants about background checks it conducts,
according a document filed in Missouri federal court.
Raini Burnside's suit, which was consolidated with two others into
multidistrict litigation in April, alleged that Michaels knowingly
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and applicants' right to
privacy by not informing prospective employees that the company
obtains consumer reports on them.
The stipulated dismissal said that Burnside's claims were
dismissed with prejudice but that the action didn't affect the
proposed class she had sought to represent.
Burnside's suit from Missouri was consolidated with two other
putative class actions from New Jersey and Texas that allege
violations of federal and state laws. The U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation said the cases involve common questions
relating to the arts and crafts retailer's online job applications
and the FCRA's so-called stand-alone disclosure requirement.
The New Jersey plaintiffs accused Michaels in March of attempting
to buy them off with a $12,000 offer of judgment in opposition to
the company's motion to dismiss their suit.
A number of companies have been hit with FCRA suits in recent
months, including Amazon.com Inc. and Whole Foods Market Group
Inc.
The suit against Whole Foods, which the company failed to get
dismissed in March, brought claims similar to those in the suits
against Michaels, alleging that the upscale grocery chain's
disclosure of the background checks isn't conspicuous because it's
buried in other application materials rather than in a stand-alone
document.
Amazon faces slightly different claims in that the lead plaintiff
alleged he didn't get a copy of his background check, which
reported a felony cocaine conviction on his record, and said that
without knowledge of the report he was not able to correct it.
Paramount Pictures Corp. escaped a proposed FCRA class action in
March after a judge determined that the company didn't need to
disclose its background checks on a separate document.
Representatives for Michaels declined to comment. Counsel for
Burnside didn't immediately return requests for comment.
Burnside is represented by Springfield F. Baldwin and J.
Christopher Wehrle of Wehrle Law LLC, Lionel Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com, Mark Greenstone -- mgreenston@glancylaw.com
-- and Marc Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- of Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP and Jon Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- of
Tostrud Law Group PC.
Michaels is represented by Rosalee M. McNamara of Lathrop & Gage
LLP.
The case is Raini Burnside v. Michaels Stores Inc., case number
6:15-cv-03010, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri.
MONTEREY COUNTY JAIL: Judge Grants Injunction in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sara Rubin, writing for Monterey County Weekly, reports that a
federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs
suing the Monterey County Jail over allegedly sub-standard medical
conditions.
In his April 14 order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal agreed
with the plaintiffs, who are current and former jail inmates, that
their medical concerns require immediate attention and the pace of
negotiations is going to slowly to ensure that their basic needs
are met.
"Absent an injunction, plaintiffs will continue to suffer serious
risk from defendants' inadequate healthcare practices," Grewal
wrote.
It's a significant step in a years-long lawsuit, but still far
from a conclusion; the preliminary injunction is just one
temporary step along the way to a final ruling or settlement
agreement.
After the lawsuit was originally filed in 2013, the parties agreed
to try to resolve their differences-something Grewal acknowledges
in his order granting the preliminary injunction.
"In the midst of this litigation over the conditions of
confinement at the Monterey County Jail, the parties did something
different," Grewal wrote. "They did something commendable. They
cooperated."
The agreement came in the form of four neutral experts that the
parties invited to review conditions at the jail. The expert panel
found a number of hazards, including: inadequate practices for
keeping newly-booked inmates on prescription drugs; inadequate
screening for TB; segregation units that put inmates at an
unacceptably high risk of suicide or other self-harm; and poor
practices for identifying and treating incoming inmates for drug
and alcohol withdrawal.
"Defendants are aware of these conditions and tolerate the
resulting risk to which inmates are exposed," Grewal wrote.
In one example, Grewal describes an inmate, identified in court
papers only as Patient 24. Patient 24 was booked in the jail on
Sept. 15, 2013, and no medical history or triage was conducted.
Two weeks later, family members tried to deliver his blood
pressure meds to the jail, but medical staff never prescribed or
administered the drugs. A week after that, a doctor noted
abnormally high blood pressure, but still no medication was
provided. Finally, on Oct. 14, a month after arriving in jail,
the man's blood pressure hit a life-threateningly high 250/140.
Only then was the appropriate medication noted in records and
prescribed.
California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG), which delivers medical
care under contract in the jail, is also a defendant in the case.
While the plaintiffs and jail officials and CFMG have been willing
to talk about needs to improve care, where they differ is on the
appropriate pace of addressing the identified gaps in care.
So the plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction, forcing the
jail and CFMG to a 60-day timeline. That gives the county jail 60
days to prepare a plan to remedy a list of 16 problems, including
continuing prescription meds; removal of objects that inmates can
use to hang themselves; developing a plan to identify and track
inmates with disabilities and to provide appropriate services;
monitor detoxifying inmates and develop separate protocol for
monitoring withdrawals from different drugs; and health and safety
checks at least every 30 minutes for inmates who are segregated
from the general population. County officials called the order a
win-win in a statement.
Most of the 16 issues required in the plan have already been
addressed, they said. This required plan, due within 60 days,
"will be a continuation of the modernization improvements
undertaken over the past several years, including a brand new
facility," Sheriff Steve Bernal said in a statement.
MORGAN & MORGAN: Faces "Rosado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wanda Rosado, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Morgan & Morgan Atlanta PLLC, Morgan & Morgan Atlanta
Management, Inc. and Justin Miller, Case No. 1:15-cv-01672 (N.D.
Ga., May 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a law firm with offices located
throughout Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Joseph Sharman, Esq.
THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
Suite 100, 11175 Cicero Drive
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Telephone: (678) 242-5297
E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com
MOUNTAIN SAFETY: Recalls Avalanche Snow Shovels
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mountain Safety Research, announced a voluntary recall of about
4,300 Avalanche rescue snow shovels in the United States and 340
in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
The lower lock button on the avalanche snow shovel's shaft can
fail to secure the blade, causing the shovel's shaft and blade to
come apart and render the shovel unable to be used as intended to
rescue avalanche victims.
This recall involves Mountain Safety Research Operator(TM) T,
Operator(TM) D, and Responder(TM) avalanche rescue snow shovels.
Lock buttons on the lower shaft connect the metal shovel blade to
the metal shaft. Recalled shovels have a slit on either side of
the lower lock button. The shovels measure about 32 to 34 inches
long. The blades are red or yellow in color and the handles are
gray. "Mountain Safety Research" is printed on the shaft of the
handle. "MSR" is printed on the front of the shovel blade.
No consumer incidents have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/XpzjeP
The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Outdoor recreation stores, including Bass Pro Shops, REI and
others, nationwide and online at Amazon.com and other websites
from October 2014 through January 2015 for between $60 and $70.
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shovels and
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or to
Mountain Safety Research for a free replacement shaft.
NABORS RED: Del. Supreme Court Overturned Chancery Court Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Red Lion Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Delaware Supreme
Court overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the
order in a shareholder class action.
The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, NIL and we, along with C&J
and the C&J board of directors, were sued by an alleged C&J
stockholder in a putative shareholder class action filed on behalf
of the C&J stockholders. The lawsuit is styled City of Miami
General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, et
al. v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al.; C.A. No. 9980-VCN, in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of
Chancery")."
"The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger, and that we and C&J aided and abetted these alleged
breaches. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with or consummating the Merger and the C&J stockholder
meeting for approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the
Merger is completed before any relief is granted, to have the
Merger rescinded. On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014,
the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a
written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain
members of the C&J board of directors to solicit for a 30 day
period alternative proposals to purchase C&J (or a controlling
stake in C&J) that are superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J from holding its stockholder meeting
until it complied with the foregoing. C&J complied with the order
while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court
of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
(the "Delaware Supreme Court"). On December 19, 2014, the Delaware
Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment and
vacated the order."
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Consolidates Benavente and Zoerb Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach signed a stipulation and consented
order on May 6, 2015, between Plaintiffs Tricia Benavente and
Andresina Benavente and Defendants National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2007-3 and The Law Offices of Patenaude & Felix,
A.P.C., to transfer the case entitled Benavente v. National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3, et al., Case No. 14-CV-
01992-GMN-VCF (D. Nev) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District Of California, and to consolidate the action with the
pending action entitled Zoerb v. National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2006-3, et al., Case No. 14-CV-00468-BAS-KSC (S.D. CAL.).
The civil action filed by Plaintiffs involves common defendants
and common questions of law and fact as to Zoerb v. National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3 et al., Case No. 14-cv-00468-
BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.).
All parties are actively engaging in good faith settlement
Negotiations and have recently reached a tentative settlement
agreement in Zoerb v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-
3 et al., Case No. 14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), which seeks to
include the claims raised by the Benaventes.
Upon transfer, Plaintiffs' class action case should be
consolidated under Zoerb v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2006-3 et al., Case no. 14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.).
The Clerk of Court is directed to close Benaventes case.
A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/OxTIr4from Leagle.com.
The cases are TRICIA BENAVENTE, and ANDRESINA BENAVENTE,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-3, A
DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S), and PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C,
Defendants. DAWN ZOERB, Individually and On Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN
TRUST 2006-3, A Delaware Statutory Trust(s); and, LAW OFFICES OF
PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., Defendants, CASE NOS. 14-CV-01992-GMN-
VCF, 14-CV-00468-BAS-KSC, (D. Nev.)
James K. Schultz, Esq. -- ischultz@sessions-law.biz -- SESSIONS,
FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.C., Chicago, IL, Attorneys for
Defendant National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3.
PATENAUDE & FELIX A.P.C. Westley Villanueva -- WesV@pandf.us --
Attorney for Defendant Patenaude & Felix, APC.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC Danny Horen -- danny@kazlg.com --
Attorney for Plaintiffs Tricia Benavente and Andresina Benavente.
NATURAL & TASTY: Faces "Slavinski" Suit for Product Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal News Line reports that a Florida class action lawsuit claims
a health food manufacturer falsely represented that its products
were free of genetically modified ingredients (GMO). Susan Lynn
Slavinski filed the lawsuit on April 7 against Natural & Tasty
alleging the company advertised one of its products was all
natural and free of GMOs even though the product contains some
artificial ingredients.
Natural & Tasty packages its Goldbaum's Quinoa Crisps as all
natural and "GMO Free." However, the lawsuit claims the barbecue
flavored crisps contain Maltodextrin, whole grain corn flower, BBQ
seasoning and vegetable oil, all of which are either artificial or
modified genetically, according to the lawsuit.
"(Natural and Tasty's) representation that the product is "All
Natural" and "GMO Free" is false, misleading, and likely to
deceive reasonable consumers because the product contains
unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified
ingredients," the lawsuit said.
Slavinski is seeking class status for those who purchased the
crisps, and is asking for more than $5 million in damages plus
court costs. She is also seeking a court order preventing the
company from continuing to advertise that its product is all
natural.
She is represented by Michael T. Fraser --
mfraser@saxongilmore.com -- of The Fraser Law Firm, P.C. in
Granite Bay, Calif.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida-
West Palm Beach Division case number 9:15-cv-80451
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT: Sued Over Unlawful Access-A-Ride Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Caldwell, on behalf of her minor Daughter, T.C., Patricia
Davis, Jacqueline Guy, Lawrence Olin, and Barbara Walsh, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New
York City Transit Authority, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03682-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's policies
and practices that violate the rights of New York City residents
with disabilities who have applied or sought to recertify for
Access-A-Ride benefits, or will apply or seek to recertify in the
future.
New York City Transit Authority is a public benefit corporation
created by New York Public Authorities Law to operate New York
City's public transit facilities.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Joonmin Kim, Esq.
David George Keyko, Esq.
James Durand Dealy, Esq.
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 858-1036
Facsimile: (917) 464-7154
E-mail: andrew.kim@pillsburylaw.com
david.keyko@pillsburylaw.com
jay.dealy@pillsburylaw.com
OCWEN LOAN: Feeding Bad Info to Credit Agencies, 9th Cir. Told
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal at Law360.com reports that a California man urged
the Ninth Circuit to revive his putative class action alleging
Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC illegally tells credit agencies that
foreclosed-on homeowners are still liable for the amount owed on
their mortgage after the homes are sold, arguing state law
eliminates personal liability on these deficiencies.
Jeffrey Kuns claimed the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act prohibits "deficiency liability" for people in his
situation, in which he had a nonjudicial foreclosure and the home
was used by fewer than five families. Ocwen has nonetheless
reported such a liability to credit agencies for thousands of
homeowners, according to Kuns' appeals briefing.
Ethan Preston of Preston Law Offices, representing Kuns, urged a
three-judge panel to revive the suit, arguing the case "hinges on
one very simple question" about the meaning of the CCRA -- whether
its requirement that information submitted to credit agencies not
be "inaccurate or incomplete" requires Ocwen not to indicate that
homeowners are personally liable for the deficiency on their
mortgage after a no judicial foreclosure.
U.S. District Judge Gordon J. Quist, sitting by appointment on the
panel, however, asked why Ocwen has a legal duty to give credit
agencies anything more than the accurate information -- that
Kuns, or another homeowner, had a mortgage, his home was
foreclosed on, and after the sale the deficiency remained.
"Your argument then seems to be that they had the additional duty
of telling people what the California law is, that you can't
really collect on that deficiency," he said. "The information
itself is accurate, is it not?"
Preston, after a pause, said, "Sure, I think it's materially
misleading."
"The word at issue here is incomplete, and if it's not materially
misleading, what can it be?" he added.
Kuns filed suit in California state court in July 2012, claiming
he bought a house in Nevada City, California, in June 2005 with a
purchase money loan serviced by Ocwen. He eventually became unable
to make his payments and the home was sold through a nonjudicial
foreclosure in December 2009.
Despite the laws against holding Kuns liable for the $400,000
difference between the amount left of his loan and the price Ocwen
got in the foreclosure sale, Ocwen -- part of Ocwen Financial
Corp. -- allegedly furnished information to credit reporting
agencies indicating he was liable.
Kuns contended he discovered the issue after he filed for
bankruptcy in June 2011.
A month after Kuns' filing, Ocwen removed the case to federal
court, convincing a district court that over $5 million was at
stake in the case.
In April 2013, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee dismissed the
case, ruling that as a matter of law, Ocwen's reporting the
deficiency balance to credit reporting agencies was neither
inaccurate nor incomplete, according to Ocwen's appellate
briefing.
Danielle Oakley of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, representing Ocwen, told
the panel that Preston had clarified what the plaintiffs thought
Ocwen "should" do in terms of reporting the deficiency, but that
the information the loan servicer actually reported was accurate.
Oakley added that when Ocwen actually reported on Kuns'
deficiency, California law still allowed for deficiency balances
to be collected from homeowners, and asked the court to affirm the
dismissal.
Circuit Judges Carlos Bea and Barry Silverman sat on the panel
that heard the arguments along with U.S. District Judge Gordon J.
Quist, sitting by appointment.
Kuns is represented by David C. Parisi --
dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- and Suzanne Havens Beckman --
sbeckman@parisihavens.com -- of Parisi & Havens LLP and Ethan
Preston -- epreston@eplaw.us -- of Preston Law Offices.
Ocwen is represented by Elizabeth L. McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com --
and Danielle N. Oakley -- doakley@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers
LLP.
The case is Jeffrey Kuns v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, case number
13-55562, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
ONEIDA TRIBE: Hit With Class Action Over Card Receipts
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Westney, writing for Law360.com, reports that the Oneida
Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin was hit with a proposed class action
in Wisconsin federal court alleging the tribe failed to shorten
credit and debit card numbers and omit expiration dates on
receipts it provided customers of its retail convenience stores.
Wisconsin resident Jeremy Meyers claimed the Oneida Tribe printed
more than the last five digits of his credit card number and the
card's expiration date on receipts he received for transactions at
three tribe-owned retail stores in the state, according to
Law360.com.
OPON INTERNATIONAL: 10th Cir. Narrows Claims in "Nakkhumpun" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part
and reversed in part the district court's order in the case
captioned PATIPAN NAKKHUMPUN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DANIEL J.
TAYLOR; CARL E. LAKEY; KEVIN K. NANKE; JOHN R. WALLACE,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-1060 (10th Cir.)
Patipan Nakkhumpun alleges the Defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission by misleading investors through
statements about (1) a proposed transaction with Opon
International, LLC and (2) Delta's financial condition.
The district court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss,
holding that Mr. Nakkhumpun had failed to allege (1) loss
causation regarding the statement about the Opon deal and (2)
falsity regarding the statements about Delta's financial
condition.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part
the district court's order, concluding that:
1. Mr. Nakkhumpun has adequately alleged falsity, scienter,
and loss causation on the statement about the Opon
transaction; and
2. Mr. Nakkhumpun has failed to adequately allege falsity or
scienter for each statement about Delta's financial
condition.
The entire text of the decision penned by Circuit Judge Bacharach
and dated April 7, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/k7gm3Cfrom
Leagle.com.
Stuart W. Emmons -- swe@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (William B. Federman --
wbf@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, with him on the briefs) for Appellant.
Eric Landau -- elandau@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Irvine,
California (Erica L. Reilley -- elreilley@jonesday.com -- Jones
Day, Irvine, California, and Kevin H. Logan, Jones Day,
Washington, D.C., with him on the brief) for Appellees.
PARADISE SHOWGIRLS: 249 strippers Sue Club for 50% of Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hetherman at Los Angeles Daily News reports that an attorney
for nearly 250 strippers told a jury that managers at Paradise
Showgirls in Industry wrongfully took nearly half of her clients'
tips earned from private dances with customers.
"These women are dancers who have not been treated right," K.L.
Myles said in her opening statement in trial of a class-action
suit brought by Quinece "Sparkle" Hills in Los Angeles Superior
Court. Hills is the lead plaintiff and represents herself and 248
other dancers who worked at the club from May 2006 until the
present.
"They believe the club wrongfully took money from them," Myles
said.
But club attorney Ernest Franceschi said it is not illegal for
Paradise Showgirls management to require dancers to share tips
they receive directly from customers for lap dances on couches
near the stage, or for longer sessions with the women in so-called
VIP rooms.
"It's not unlike a hair salon that rents space to a barber or a
beautician," he said.
Franceschi said Paradise Showgirls makes its money from the rental
fees from the performers, the admission price and the service of
non-alcoholic beverages. Franceschi said it's not even clear that
Hills ever worked at Paradise Showgirls, which is located on a
gritty commercial stretch of Valley Boulevard.
"We don't have any evidence of Ms. Hills dancing at Paradise
Showgirls," he said.
Hills, the first witness in the trial, said she was hired the same
day she auditioned in 2005 and signed a work agreement in which
her only income was to be her share of tips from customers.
However, she said she never received any documentation from the
club about her income. Hills, who said she grew up in the Inland
Empire and now lives in the South Bay, testified that she became a
stripper at age 19 so that she could be financially independent
from her mother. She said she found out about Paradise Showgirls
from a billboard posted along a freeway. Hills said her mother
was not enthusiastic about her taking such a job.
"She wasn't for it at all, but there was nothing she could do to
stop it," Hills said." So she told me to just be safe."
Hills said club bosses told her that after she got off the stage
to perform a nude dance to two songs, she was required to mingle
with the mostly male crowd to offer them lap dances for $40. VIP
dances cost more, she said.
PC DRILLING: Faces "Self" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan A. Self and James C. McGonagill, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. P.C. Drilling and Service,
LLC f/k/a Pipe Creek Water Well, LLC and Robert R. Powell, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00389 (W.D. Tex., May 12, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a full service water well company
engaged in drilling, pump installation and maintenance for
agricultural, residential and commercial water wells in multiple
counties in Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
BARON AND BUDD PC
3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
PFIZER INC: July 30 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation:
Summary Notice
TO:
All persons who purchased domestically or purchased on domestic
exchanges the common stock of Pfizer Inc. during the period
January 19, 2006 through January 23, 2009, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby
You Are Hereby Notified, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on July 30, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., before the
Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge, at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 14D, New York, NY 10007-1312, for the purpose of
determining:
(1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
Litigation for the principal amount of $400,000,000.00,
plus interest, should be approved by the Court as fair,
just, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the
Litigation with prejudice;
(3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved; and
(4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses and Lead Plaintiff's and Class
Representative Mary K. Jones' expenses in connection with
this Litigation should be approved.
If you purchased domestically or purchased on domestic exchanges
any of the common stock of Pfizer during the period January 19,
2006 through January 23, 2009, inclusive, your rights may be
affected by the settlement of this litigation. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain
copies by writing to Pfizer Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 808003, Petaluma, CA 94975-8003, or on
the internet at www.pfizerincsecuritieslitigation.com. If you are
a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by
mail (postmarked no later than July 30, 2015) or submitted
electronically no later than July 30, 2015, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.
If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than May 21, 2015, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement, referred
to above. If you previously requested exclusion from the Class
pursuant to the Notice of Pendency of Class Action dated November
17, 2014 and still want to be excluded, you need not request
exclusion again. All Members of the Class who do not timely and
validly request exclusion from the Class in response to the Notice
of Proposed Settlement or did not previously request exclusion in
response to the Notice of Pendency will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation.
PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR: Protective Order Entered in "Covington" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., signed on April 21, 2015, an
agreed modified protective order in GARY COVINGTON, on behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFFS v. NEAL BYRD,
in his Official Capacity, DALE ACOSTA, Individually and in his
Official Capacity; ULESS WALLACE, Individually and in his Official
Capacity; HERMAN HALL, Individually and in his Official Capacity
DEFENDANTS, NO. 2:12-CV-123-DPM, (E.D. Ark.).
Mr. Covington has requested complete copies of the Phillips County
District Court Docket Sheets showing the first-appearance dates,
birthdates, and social security numbers for potential members of
the Covington class. The parties agreed that this information is
sensitive. Defendants agreed to produce the Docket Sheets to
Plaintiffs' counsel and Class Action Administration, Inc., (CAA)
subject to these conditions:
1. Plaintiffs' counsel shall use the Docket Sheets only for
purposes of this litigation.
2. With the exception of future litigation brought by Gary
Covington, no party may use the Docket Sheets in another
administrative or civil proceeding or action without a new
request.
3. While this litigation is ongoing, the parties' counsel --
including counsels' paralegals, secretarial staff, and other staff
members -- and CAA shall maintain the confidential records.
4. The parties must follow Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. If redaction is
impracticable, then the party filing a Docket Sheet must mark it
"confidential" and file it under seal.
5. Counsel and their staff shall not communicate the contents of
the Docket Sheets with anyone other than CAA.
6. The parties shall destroy the Docket Sheets produced no later
than three years after this litigation has ended.
7. Any party may move to amend this Order for good cause. The
parties agree that Docket Sheets covered by the Arkansas Freedom
of Information Act are not confidential.
A copy of Protective Order is available at http://is.gd/Z51WRx
from Leagle.com.
Sara Teague, North Little Rock, AR, Attorney for Defendants.
Luther O. Sutter, Benton, AR, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Nick Windle, Hot Springs, AR, Attorney for Neal Byrd.
PILOT FLYING J: Employee Files Motion to Avoid Testimony
--------------------------------------------------------
WBIR.com reports that attorneys for a Pilot Flying J employee on
administrative leave filed a motion to not force her to testify in
civil court about the federal investigation into the company.
In court documents filed, Lori McFarland's lawyers said she's
mentioned in search warrants issued by the FBI and is still a
subject of the investigation, even though she hasn't been charged.
McFarland is claiming her Fifth Amendment privilege not to
incriminate herself, according to the motion.
April 15 marked the two-year anniversary of the FBI's rain on
Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, seizing thousands of
documents and copying computer hard drives. The firm -- the
nation's largest chain of truck stops and travel centers -- is
accused of preying on trucking companies, particularly those
executives deemed too unsophisticated to notice or those who spoke
English as a second language.
According to federal documents, the company since at least 2008
crafted a rebate fraud scheme to drive up profits, bump off the
competition and increase commissions for its sales representatives
and executives. Trucking companies, under the reimbursement
program, paid retail price for fuel and received a cut on monthly
invoices, or a rebate check.
Civil suits against Pilot were mostly resolved in November 2013 by
a class-action settlement in which Pilot agreed to pay nearly $85
million to 5,500 customers. As of March, three trucking companies
are still suing Pilot in federal court.
Last July, the company agreed to cooperate with the ongoing
criminal investigation into diesel fuel rebate fraud, and pay a
$92 million penalty over the next two years. Since the raid in
2013, several employees have pleaded guilty to the scheme.
The federal investigation into Pilot Flying J is still ongoing.
PULSE ELECTRONICS: Faces Odinotski and Solak Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pulse Electronics Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 26, 2014, that Matthew Odinotski
and John Solak, or the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated stockholders, filed on March 18,
2015, a putative class action and derivative complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego,
against us, our directors, Oaktree Capital Management, L.P., OCM
PE Holdings, L.P., and OCM PE Merger Sub, Inc. (the "Defendants").
"The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties. The
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive
relief. We cannot, at this stage, quantify the potential impact
of these claims or our defense of the case, if any, on our future
consolidated financial position or results of operations," the
Company said.
QUICKSILVER INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Quiksilver Inc. and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Quiksilver securities between June 6, 2014
and March 26, 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 Quiksilver securities
during the Class Period, you have until June 1, 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.
Quiksilver designs, develops, and distributes branded apparel,
footwear, accessories, and related products primarily for men,
women, and children. Its products are for various activities,
including casual and outdoor lifestyle associated with surfing,
skateboarding, snowboarding, BMX and motocross, and rally car.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal
controls over financial reporting; and (2) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 4, 2015, the Company announced that it would delay its
first quarter earnings report due to its audit committee's
investigation of a "revenue cut-off issue."
On this news, shares of Quiksilver fell $0.09 per share or
approximately 5% from its previous closing price to close at $1.90
per share on March 4, 2015.
On March 26, 2015, the Company filed an amended Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2014 (the "Amended 2014 10-K"),
which revealed that its internal control over financial reporting
was not effective as of October 31, 2014.
On this news, shares of Quiksilver fell $0.35 per share or over
15% from its previous closing price to close at $1.90 per share on
March 27, 2015.
On March 27, 2015, the Company announced the abrupt removal of
Defendant Mooney, effective March 27, 2015 and sudden resignation
of Defendant Shields, effective April 3, 2015.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions.
RAILEY'S: Pregnant Women Files Suit Over Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
Denny Walsh, writing for Sacbee.com, reports that Luciana Borrego
gave birth to a baby boy on Nov. 13, 2013. It was an event she
had joyously anticipated. But, she said, it was tempered by a
heavy price: her job in Ukiah at Raley's, part of the West
Sacramento-based retail grocery chain.
In a lengthy telephone interview, Borrego recalled informing her
managers in June 2013, five months before her baby was born, that
she was pregnant. On July 11, she brought in a note from her
physician saying she should not lift more than 10 pounds, Borrego
said. About an hour later, she said, she was summoned to the store
director's office and informed that she would have to take unpaid
leave.
"I was told I would have to go home because, even though I had a
doctor's note, they don't accommodate pregnant people," Borrego
recounted. She said she was "devastated," and never went back.
Borrego, 30, is now one of two plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in
Sacramento Superior Court against Raley's by a group of top
employment discrimination lawyers. The suit alleges that Raley's
has an unlawful policy of refusing to offer accommodations to
pregnant workers, while making reasonable accommodations for
workers who are injured on the job.
In an emailed response to The Sacramento Bee, Raley's spokeswoman
Chelsea Minor said: "We deny these accusations and take objection
to any suggestion that Raley's does not care about its team
members, let alone its pregnant team members."
Minor said Raley's has historically gone "above and beyond what is
legally required."
"As a strong, family-owned business, Raley's fully appreciates the
important role women play in the workplace. Raley's is prepared to
defend itself against these charges," Minor said.
Raley's operates more than 120 supermarkets in Northern California
and Nevada, under the Raley's name as well as Bel Air Markets, Nob
Hill Foods and Food Source.
The second plaintiff, Kristen Kelly, 19, had worked nearly three
years at an Antelope Bel Air store when she became pregnant.
According to the suit, she delivered the news to several managers
last fall and presented a doctor's note stating she could not lift
heavy items.
One of Kelly's duties on her early shift was sweeping the floor
and, because she was experiencing severe morning sickness, the
smell on some aisles triggered nausea and caused her to throw up,
the suit recounts. Managers denied her request to wear a mask, and
also her request on one occasion that someone finish sweeping
because she was sick.
The lawsuit says that, in November, the store's director called
Kelly into his office and said "she either had to go on (unpaid)
leave, or Raley's would have to let her go."
Kelly is still on leave, with a return-to-work date of June 15.
The team of workplace-discrimination lawyers who filed the suit is
seeking class-action status and looking for all current and former
Raley's workers in California who were "denied reasonable
accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions" in the last four
years.
The plaintiffs' legal team is composed of two attorneys from Equal
Rights Advocates, a national civil rights organization that
advocates for women; The Liu Law Firm in San Francisco, which
specializes in employee rights; and the San Francisco office of
Outten & Golden, which handles employment cases, including
workplace-discrimination matters.
"California has one of the strongest laws in the country for the
protection of pregnant employees," said attorney David Scher, a
principal in The Employment Law Group and a nationally known
expert on employment law. He does not have a connection to the
suit against Raley's.
"The law in California is very clear," Sher said. "Pregnancy is
equated to disability, in that it impedes the ability of an
employee to perform regular functions without accommodations. You
can't fire an employee or diminish pay in any way because of a
pregnancy."
The law also grants pregnant employees the right to light duties,
if available, as an accommodation, he said.
Borrego said the store in Ukiah could have easily accommodated
her. She worked in the deli and bakery, where she packaged items,
decorated cakes and handled restocking and customer service work.
The only two things Borrego said she couldn't do were lift boxes
of fried chicken and containers of frozen dough.
ROCKY BRANDS: Recalls Hunting Boots
-----------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rocky Brands Inc., of Nelsonville, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,800 Hunting Boots. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
The boots' snake guard can fail to protect the wearer's feet from
a snake bite.
The recalled boots are 16-inch tall rubber hunting boots sold
under the Rocky brand name. The recalled boots have a camouflage
pattern on the outside of the shaft and foot. A white label on the
inside of the shaft of has the Rocky logo, product number RKYS153,
a date code between 12-14 and 01-15 in the MM-YY format and the
words "Men's 16 Silent Hunter Snake Boot, Camo" below the product
number and date code.
The company reports one incident of the boots' snake guard failing
in which a Rocky Brands contractor sustained injuries from a snake
bite while demonstrating the product.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/BVMaUu
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Various retailers nationwide, including Tomlinson's, Bowie
Outfitters, and Mossy Oak stores, and online at www.rockyboots.com
during March 2015 for about $200.
Consumers should stop wearing the recalled boots immediately and
contact Rocky Brands for a full refund or a free pair of
replacement snakebite-proof hunting boots in one of the following
models: Lynx Snake, Classic Lynx Snake, Prolight Snake in lace up,
pull-on or side-zip styles.
RUAN INC: Settles "Williams" Class Action for $10.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Griswold, writing for Fresno Bee, reports that a class
action lawsuit by milk tanker drivers against Ruan trucking
company for allegedly not allowing them uninterrupted lunch and
dinner breaks is being settled out of court for $10.5 million.
About 1,145 drivers and former drivers in California are affected,
and checks would average more than $5,000, said the drivers'
lawyer, Andrew Jones of Fresno. The lawsuit was filed in 2008,
and the agreement was reached, he said.
If the case had not settled, it would have gone to trial later in
April in Tulare County Superior Court.
Ruan Transportation Management Systems, based in Des Moines, Iowa,
called the lawsuit a "distraction" and settled to put it in the
rearview mirror.
"Ruan's senior leadership and legal team felt strongly that we
would successfully defend the claims made by the class given our
compliant policies and practices," the company said in a
statement. "However, it was time to reach a final resolution on
this matter."
The drivers are "the backbone of our organization" who are
appreciated and well-paid, the company said.
Drivers complained they would take half-hour unpaid lunch breaks
while trucks were in line at a creamery to offload their tankers,
yet were required to be in radio contact and near their trucks at
all times in case they had to be moved into or out of a loading
bay or moved forward in line.
"I'm not saying they didn't take lunch," but the half-hour break
was not exclusively the drivers' time as required by law, Jones
said.
"I liken it to hiring a college kid to stand in line for you to
buy tickets to a Giants game," Jones said. "After three hours you
tell him, 'Take a half-hour unpaid lunch break but don't leave the
line.' "
The company said its policies and practices complied with
California law and union contracts.
"Throughout their employment, drivers have consistently been
allowed the opportunity to take off-duty meal breaks at creameries
and off-site locations," the company said.
Much of the dispute involved former employees who worked for Kings
County Truck Lines before Ruan acquired the company's California
operations several years ago, the company said.
The majority of the $10.5 million settlement will go to the
drivers' attorneys, lawsuit costs and former employees, the
company said.
Retired driver Matt Jett of Kern County said he drove for Kings
County Truck Lines and Ruan for many years.
"I hope this lesson goes around the country for companies to give
the employee the required lunch break," he said.
Jones said the agreement was reached with the assistance of a
mediator. It is being written and must still be approved by a
judge, he said.
The case is, KEVIN WILLIAMS, DAVID YOUNG, SCOTT ROWE, and RON
CABRERA, Plaintiffs, vs. RUAN, INCORPORATED, KINGS COUNTY TRUCK
LINES, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
RG08414569 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
Attorney for Plaintiffs Kevin Williams, David Young, Scott Rowe,
and Ron Cabrera:
Andrew B. Jones, Esq.
Nicholas Wagner, Esq.
Daniel M. Kopfman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WAGNER & JONES LLP
1111 East Herndon, Suite 317
Fresno, CA 93720
Tel: 559-449-1800
SAFEGUARD SERVICES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Cardenas" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Cabrera Cardenas and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b v. Safeguard Services, Inc., Kerry Ann Connor, and
Kevin T. Connor, Case No. 1:15-cv-21798-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 12,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendants own and operate a janitorial services company in
Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
SANSOOGAPSAN II: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sansoogapsan II, Inc. d/b/a San Soo Kap San 2, Yun Hwa
No and John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-02749 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 171-10
Northern Boulevard, Flushing, New York 11358.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
SCHYLLING INC: Recalls Police Toy Vehicles Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Schylling Inc. of Rowley, Mass., announced a voluntary recall of
about 13,200 Police Press and Go Toy Vehicles in the U.S. and
2,100 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.
The hat can detach from the policeman's head and pose a choking
hazard to young children.
This recall involves the Police Press & Go toy vehicles. The white
plastic toy cars have a painted dark blue hood and trunk, light
blue windshield with a black eyes and mouth painted on the front
of the car. There is a police head coming out of the roof of the
car wearing a blue police hat with a green star on the center of
the hat. When the police head is pressed down it winds up the
motor and the car moves forward. The toy vehicles measure about
2.5 inches wide by 3.5 inches long by 3.5 inches tall. "Schylling
Rowley, MA" and UPC number "01964922782" are printed on the bottom
of the toy cars.
Schylling has received one report of the police hat detaching from
the toy vehicles. No injuries have been reported.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/U1DYDE
The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Specialty toy and gift stores nationwide from April 2010 through
April 2015 for about $5.
SEA WORLD: 'Tell Truth', Animal Rights Group Demands
----------------------------------------------------
Dennis Lynch, writing for IBTimes, reports that SeaWorld's legal
troubles show no signs of slowing: A new class-action lawsuit,
this one filed in San Francisco, claims the theme park lies about
the mental and physical well-being of its orcas, or killer whales.
It is the third lawsuit filed against SeaWorld. The first was
filed just a few days after SeaWorld launched an ambitious ad
campaign to combat claims it mistreats the orcas. A California
nonprofit environmental organization, the Earth Island Institute,
is providing legal counsel to the plaintiffs, Marc Anderson and
Ellexa Conway, two people who visited SeaWorld's park in San
Diego. The EII wants "to force SeaWorld to tell the truth" about
its orcas and its care of them.
The suit alleges SeaWorld violates two California advertising laws
by profiting from false statements that "are misleading to
reasonable consumers." David Phillips, executive director of the
International Marine Mammal Project for the EII, slammed SeaWorld
in a statement.
"If SeaWorld told the truth about the whales' shortened and
stressful lives in concrete tanks, and severe depression and
boredom from sterile living conditions, no one would ever go
there," Phillips said. "Would people bring their children to
SeaWorld if they knew the cruelty behind the orca whale circus
show? We think not."
In late March SeaWorld launched its print, air and online ad
campaign featuring some of the theme park's veterinarians and
trainers attesting to SeaWorld's care of orcas and refuting claims
made by critics like that orcas in the wild live up to five times
longer on average than those living at SeaWorld. SeaWorld stocks
have dropped more than 36 percent in the last year, while
attendance and revenue are also down, according to the San Diego
Union-Tribune.
Those losses come after the release of the 2013 documentary
Blackfish, a film focused on Tilikum, an orca linked to the death
of three trainers. The film portrays the animal as having suffered
from inhumane conditions. SeaWorld strongly denies the allegations
in the film, which it calls "propaganda" created by animal rights
activists masquerading as scientists.
SIBANYE GOLD: Oct. 12 and 19 Hearings in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Sibanye Gold Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the date for the hearing
of the applications related to a class action lawsuit is currently
the weeks of October 12 and 19, 2015.
On August 21, 2012, a court application was served on a group of
respondents that included Sibanye (the August Respondents). On
December 21, 2012, a further court application was issued and was
formally served on a number of respondents, including Sibanye (the
December Respondents) and, together with the August Respondents,
the Respondents, on January 10, 2013, on behalf of classes of mine
workers, former mine workers and their dependants who were
previously employed by, or who are currently employed by, among
others, Sibanye, and who allegedly contracted silicosis and/or
other occupational lung diseases (the Classes). The court
application of August 21, 2012 and the court application of
December 21, 2012 are together referred to as the Applications.
These Applications request that the court certify a class action
to be instituted by the applicants on behalf of the Classes. The
Applications are the first and preliminary steps in a process
where, if the court were to certify the class action, the
applicants may, in a second stage, bring an action wherein they
will attempt to hold the Respondents liable for silicosis, and
other occupational lung diseases and resultant consequences. In
the second stage, the Applications contemplate addressing what the
applicants describe as common legal and factual issues regarding
the claim arising from the allegations of the entire Classes. If
the applicants are successful in the second stage, they envisage
that individual members of the Classes could later submit
individual claims for damages against the respective Respondents.
The Applications do not identify the number of claims that may be
instituted against the Respondents or the quantum of damages the
applicants may seek.
With respect to the Applications, Sibanye filed a notice of its
intention to oppose the application and instructed its attorneys
to defend the claims. The two class actions were consolidated into
one action during 2013. Sibanye and its attorneys further engaged
with the applicants' attorneys and the court in both Applications
to try to establish a court-sanctioned process to agree the
timelines. Such a process was agreed upon and timelines imposed by
means of a timetable. Sibanye has thus far filed all its papers
opposing the Applications. The date for the hearing of the
Applications is currently the weeks of October 12 and 19, 2015.
SILVER CREEK: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff L. Carter v. Silver Creek Services Inc., and Silver Line
Logistics Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01661 (N.D. Tex., May 12, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendants own and operate an oil and natural gas company in
Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP
Meadow Park Tower
10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 706-0834
Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
E-mail: jsiegel.esq@gmail.com
SINCLAIR OIL: Ill. Appeals Court Remands Allianz Coverage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A judgment delivered by Justice Moore of the Illinois Court of
Appeals, Fifth Division, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded for further proceedings the case captioned SINCLAIR OIL
CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, f/k/a Allianz Underwriters, Inc., Defendant-Appellant,
NO. 5-14-0069 (Ill. App. Ct.)
Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company (Allianz) appealed a
January 8, 2013 order of the circuit court of Madison County which
granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Sinclair Oil
Corporation (Sinclair). The circuit court made a determination
that Allianz breached its duty to defend Sinclair with respect to
multiple underlying lawsuits and claims arising out of alleged
environmental contamination of soil and groundwater in Hartford,
as well as cleanup activities and alleged exposure to benzene-
containing products as a result of such contamination.
In an opinion dated April 7, 2015 available at http://is.gd/oxrJ75
from Leagle.com, the appellate court:
-- found that the circuit court erred when it found adequate
evidence in the record to prove that Allianz breached its
duty to defend Sinclair on the bodily injury claims
arising from the underlying lawsuits
-- affirmed the circuit court's determination that Allianz
breached its duty to defend Sinclair with respect to the
property damage claims, and as such, is liable for
Sinclair's defense costs with respect to these claims
-- remanded for further proceedings in which the circuit
court determines the amount of attorney fees attributable
to the property damage claims, and makes a determination,
after further development of the record, regarding
Allianz's duty to defend Sinclair with regard to the
bodily injury claims.
Attorneys for Appellant:
Daniel L. Bradley, Esq.
DeFRANCO & BRADLEY, P.C.
141 Market Place, Suite 104
Fairview Heights, IL 62208
E-mail: bradley@defrancolaw.com
- and -
Kristi S. Nolley, Esq.
David M. Alt, Esq.
BATESCAREY, LLP
191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: knolley@batescarey.com
dalt@batescarey.com
Attorneys for Appellee:
Bernard J. Ysursa, Esq.
COOK, YSURSA, BARTHOLOMEW, BRAUER & SHELVIN, LTD.
12 West Lincoln Street
Belleville, IL 62220
- and -
Joseph G. Nassif, Esq.
Ron Hobbs, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
E-mail: joseph.nassif@huschblackwell.com
ron.hobbs@huschblackwell.com
SMARTHEAT INC: Paid Plaintiffs US$120,000 to Settle Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
SmartHeat Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company paid the
plaintiffs US$120,000 to settle a class action lawsuit.
On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, which
purported to allege federal securities law claims against the
Company and certain of its former officers and directors, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Thereafter, two plaintiffs filed competing
motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the proceeding. A lead
plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed on
January 28, 2013. A second amended complaint was filed on April 8,
2013. The second amended complaint alleged two counts against the
Company, both asserting violations of the federal securities laws
arising from alleged insider sales or management sales of
securities and alleged false disclosures relating to those sales.
On March 17, 2014 the court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion
for class certification, without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the
lead plaintiff once again filed a motion for class certification.
By Opinion and Order dated January 21, 2015, the Court denied
plaintiffs' class certification motion, finding that it failed to
satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality,
adequacy and predominance. Specifically, the Court found that
plaintiffs' theory of liability required a trade-by-trade inquiry
as to whether the sale of the locked-up shares resulted in price
inflation of the company's stock, and that, as a result, the
injury to all class members could not be established by common
proof. The Court also expressed doubts as to how plaintiffs would
establish damages. The Court's denial of class certification was
without prejudice, and the Court gave plaintiffs until February
17, 2015 to file a "far more rigorous, and a far more convincing
submission . . ." The pleadings and court orders are publicly
available.
The Company entered into the settlement in order to avoid further
cost of defending any of the purported actions. According to the
settlement, the Company paid the plaintiffs US$120,000. In return,
the plaintiffs dismissed all claims against the Company and all of
the individual defendants with prejudice. As a result of the
settlement, the case will not be allowed to be re-filed.
The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of
fault by the Company or any of the individual defendants. The
Company has and continues to assert that the allegations made in
the consolidated lawsuits lack merit and no evidence was ever
asserted supporting the allegations made in the consolidated
lawsuits. The Company has nevertheless agreed to the settlement in
order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of
further litigation. The Company believes that putting this matter
behind it is in the best interest of its customers, employees and
shareholders so that it can remain focused on growing and
strengthening its business.
ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Parking Ticket Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Frenske, writing for River Front Times, reports that former
St. Louis City Counselor Eric Banks has filed a class-action
lawsuit against the city in circuit court, challenging its parking
enforcement practices as a violation of constitutional rights.
The suit seeks to represent anyone who received a citation for
parking at an expired meter -- and was found liable after enduring
the city's administrative hearing process.
Those hearings are the main issue in Banks' lawsuit. As the
attorney describes it, he arrived for a hearing after getting a
parking ticket he was convinced was unfair -- only to be told by
the hearing officer that, unless he had evidence that the parking
meter in question was broken at the time of citation, the officer
would rule against him.
Then the officer did just that, even though the city hadn't
bothered to send anyone to testify on its behalf, and even though
Banks believed he'd identified procedural errors. The burden was
entirely on Banks.
What made the matter more galling is that Banks had attempted to
get information showing the meter was defective -- but the city
told him the records he'd requested would cost $1,700.
"People are calling me Don Quixote on this one," Banks says,
ruefully. "I'm going after the windmill."
Banks' quest began last May, when he arrived for a Mound City Bar
Association meeting downtown at 6:10 p.m. He says he put more than
enough money in the meter, but when he returned to his car, he saw
he'd been ticketed at 6:56 p.m. When he wrote to the city asking
for the ticket to be dismissed, he received a form letter
informing him of a hearing date in June.
As Banks describes it, the hearing itself was a joke. He'd been
told to expect to be in the office "up to 30 minutes from your
scheduled time" -- yet his hearing didn't start until an hour and
fifteen minutes passed. He watched as other people contesting
their tickets ran back outside to feed their meters, desperate to
avoid getting another ticket while they fought the first one.
"It is Plaintiff's understanding, based on the behavior of the
citizens when they left the hearing room that the Hearing
Examiners ruled against every citizen who appealed his or her
parking ticket and had his or her hearing that day" he writes.
At every step along the way, Banks' story seems to prove the adage
that you can't fight city hall. After the hearing officer
summarily ruled against him, Banks filed an application to appeal,
which cost $181. But the city filed a motion to dismiss -- and
even though Banks believed he'd reached an agreement with the city
attorney to push back the court date until after he could perform
discovery, the hearing went on without him present. Naturally, the
judge ruled against him.
A long-time St. Louis attorney, Banks served as the city counselor
under Mayor Clarence Harmon, running the city law department from
1997 to 1999.
That position, he acknowledges, "does give me unique insight into
how these things are handled. I did some soul-searching: 'Did
stuff like this go on during my watch?' I decided the answer was
'probably' -- but I didn't know about it."
The suit argues that the city suffers from systemic abuses.
"Unfortunately," Banks writes, "Ferguson, Missouri, does not have
a monopoly on abusing those who live, work or visit that City. For
the reasons set forth in this lawsuit, the City of St. Louis has a
policy and practice of annually stealing thousands of dollars by
improperly issuing parking citations and circumventing substantive
and procedural due process when citizens try to stand up for their
rights."
If Banks wins, he requests that any repayment for attorney's fees
(typically the biggest payout in any class-action suit) goes Legal
Services of Eastern Missouri, the ArchCity Defenders or another
organization chosen by the court.
"This is not about getting a bunch of money," he says. "This is
about bringing about policy change."
SYNERON MEDICAL: Second Evidentiary Hearing Scheduled for June
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syneron Medical Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the second evidentiary
hearing in a class action lawsuit is scheduled for June 2015.
On December 31, 2013, Syneron Medical Ltd. and its subsidiary,
Syneron Beauty Ltd. (which following a joint venture with Unilever
Ventures is now a subsidiary of Iluminage Beauty), received a copy
of a petition filed with the Central District Court in Israel to
approve the filing of a class action suit against Syneron Medical
Ltd. and Syneron Beauty Ltd. (the "Respondents"). The Petitioner
claims that the Respondents violated article 2 of the Consumer
Protection Act resulting from misleading advertising regarding the
Syneron Beauty me hair removal device. The Petitioner claims that
she suffered monetary damages as a result of relying on misleading
representations by Respondents. In addition, the Petitioner claims
injury to bodily autonomy and integrity. The Petitioner claims to
represent the class of consumers that purchased the me hair
removal device and is seeking damages for the group in the amount
of NIS 27.5 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself in this matter. An evidentiary hearing was held in February
2015 and a second evidentiary hearing is scheduled for June 2015.
TARGET CORP: Nov. 10 Final Hearing on Data Breach Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb at lawyersandsettlements.com reports that it's been a
tough couple of years for Target Corp (Target). The retailer's
expansion into Canada failed miserably. What's more, the massive
data breach that hit the retailer in 2013 resulted in class-action
lawsuits. Those data breach lawsuits appear to be on their way to
being settled, after a US District Court Judge on March granted
preliminary approval to a $10 million settlement.
A hearing for final approval is scheduled for November 10. The
preliminary approval, however, provides a pathway for data breach
plaintiffs to file for losses against the settlement fund.
Retailers and other organizations, such as Home Depot and Anthem
Health, have been blindsided by data breaches after hackers blew
past firewalls and other protocols aimed at protecting data,
making off with sensitive information that carries significant
value in the data aftermarket. Target's data breach woes occurred
in 2013, when details and data from as many as 40 million credit
and debit card accounts were exposed.
A host of data breach lawsuits quickly followed, as consumers
having grown to trust retailers and corporations to mind the data
store and keep sensitive information safely hidden from cyber
criminals, suddenly found themselves exposed. Fearing identity
theft and negative impacts to their credit history, consumers sued
Target in droves.
According to court documents and a report from the Associated
Press (AP), the Target class-action data breach settlement,
granted preliminary approval by US District Court Judge Paul
Magnuson, could see claims beginning to flow by April 30. Affected
consumers can claim up to $10,000 in losses provided they can
properly document unreimbursed losses. Once those claims are
sorted out and duly paid, the remainder of the fund will be
disbursed to consumers of Target who are prepared to swear under
oath any circumstance of a qualifying loss in the absence of
documentation.
Those who have already been fully reimbursed for their losses are
not eligible for the settlement fund.
Magnuson threw out a bouquet to Target for moving to settle the
matter relatively quickly. "Target really needs to be commended
for being willing to step up," Magnuson said.
In the end, according to AP, the settlement could cost Target as
much as $25 million, once legal fees and administrative costs are
factored in. This comes in tandem with the shut-down of the
failed Canadian expansion, and an announcement in early March that
Target would cut about 3,100 jobs through the elimination of 1,400
unfilled positions and the laying off of about 1,700 employees.
Keeping sensitive data safely away from cyber criminals is
becoming an increasing challenge as hackers are getting more
sophisticated. To that end, the Target data breach settlement
includes a provision that Target hire a chief information security
officer, maintain a written information security program and
provide security training to its workers. Target would also be
required to maintain a process to monitor for data security events
and quickly respond to such an event deemed to present a threat.
In the meantime, consumers and others concerned over the security
of sensitive information, and who unwittingly become caught up in
a data breach, have little recourse but to pursue compensation
through the courts when a data breach rears its ugly head. With
more retail commerce, and the storage and transference of
sensitive data online, the continuing threat of cyber hacks and
data theft suggests that data breach lawsuits will remain part of
the legal landscape for an inordinate period of time.
TRANSURBAN: Faces Class Action Over Hot Lane Fines
--------------------------------------------------
Jeff Clabaugh, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports
that district law firms Hausfeld and Tycko & Zavareei LLP have
filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of three commuters who
received thousands of dollars in fines over unpaid high-occupancy
toll lane charges.
Named as defendants are toll road operator Transurban, Faneuil and
their partners. The suit alleges "unfair, illegal and
unconscionable" administrative fees and civil penalties for the
HOT lanes tolls.
Locally, Transurban administers HOT lanes on interstates 95, 395
and 495.
The suit, filed in Virginia federal court, claims Melbourne,
Australia-based Transurban fails to give adequate notice to
drivers whose E-ZPass is not read and a minimal toll violation
occurs, and then assesses and attempts to collect thousands of
dollars in penalties and fees from the driver.
An Alexandria woman was hit with $9,440.90 in fees and penalties
because of $20 in missed tolls -- the result, the law firms say,
of a botched transponder that worked correctly for half of the
woman's roundtrip commute.
The lawsuit says the penalties and fees violate the E-ZPass
contract, state law, and the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
"Inadvertent missed tolls can happen to anyone, whether because
the toll gate malfunctions, or because an E-ZPass battery dies,"
said Tycko & Zavareei partner Jeffrey Kaliel. "But this private
toll-road operator must not be allowed to ruin a driver's finances
with thousands of dollars in devastating fees and penalties for a
$1 or $2 toll."
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Ghazi" Suit for Misclassifying Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that besides misclassifying its
drivers as independent contractors, Uber never compensated one of
its drivers for being stabbed by a passenger, a class claims in
state court
The case is Abdo Ghazi v. Uber Technologies Inc., in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Want PAGA Penalties in Tipping Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360.com, reports that a proposed
class of Uber Inc. drivers urged a California federal judge to let
them add claims under the Private Attorney General Act to their
case alleging the ride-hailing company cheated them out of a 20
percent gratuity, a move that could allow them to seek additional
penalties. Plaintiffs' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten &
Liss-Riordan PC said the class didn't add the PAGA claim sooner
because they were awaiting the California Supreme Court's Iskanian
decision, which strengthened the enforceability of class waivers
in arbitration.
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Settles Digital Songs Royalties Suit for $11.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
allaccess.com reports that the Universal Music Group, on behalf of
UMG Recordings Inc. and Capitol Records LLC, and plaintiffs'
attorneys representing clients in class action lawsuits regarding
digital download royalties submitted a settlement for preliminary
court approval.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs (including the estate of Rick
James, Chuck D of Public Enemy and others) alleged that UMG failed
to pay proper royalties to certain artists when consumers bought
MP3 files from digital music retailers.
Under the proposed terms, UMG will contribute a maximum of $11.5
million to supplement payments to class members for past digital
download activity, cover attorneys' fees and administrative costs,
and also increase digital download royalties by approximately 10%
going forward to class members who submit a claim. In the
settlement agreement, UMG specifically denies the plaintiffs'
claims, and states that it agreed to settle the claims rather than
continue to litigate the matter to avoid the associated legal
expenses.
In a statement, UMG commented, "Although we are confident we
appropriately paid royalties on digital downloads and adhered to
the terms of contracts, we are pleased to amicably resolve this
matter and avoid continued legal costs."
Len Simon, one of the lead plaintiffs' attorneys, said, "This
settlement is a fair resolution of this controversy over how to
compensate artists for their valuable work in a new medium which
we believe was not contemplated by their contracts, many drafted
in the 1970s or 1980s. And it compensates these artists now,
rather than after additional years of litigation and uncertainty."
US FOODS: Court Finalized Settlement in 2006 Pricing Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
US Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2014, that the United States
District Court of Connecticut has finalized the settlement
agreement under which Ahold paid $297 million to the settlement
fund and US Foods was released from all claims in the 2006 Pricing
Litigation.
The Company said, "In October 2006, two customers filed a putative
class action against Ahold and us. In December 2006, an amended
complaint named a third plaintiff. The complaint focuses on
certain of our pricing practices in contracts with some customers.
In February 2007, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In
August 2007, two additional customers filed punitive class action
complaints. These two additional lawsuits are based upon the
pricing practices at issue in the October 2006 case."
"In November 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of the two additional lawsuits to the
jurisdiction in which the first lawsuit was filed -- the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut -- for consolidated
or coordinated proceedings. In June 2008, the plaintiffs filed
their consolidated and amended class action complaint. We moved to
dismiss this complaint. In August 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification. In December 2009, the court issued
a ruling on our motion to dismiss. It dismissed Ahold from the
case and also dismissed certain of the plaintiffs' claims.
"On November 30, 2011, the court issued its ruling granting the
plaintiffs motion to certify the class. On April 4, 2012, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted our request to
appeal the District Court's decision which granted class
certification. Oral argument was held and the court upheld the
grant of class certification. We filed a writ of certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court which was denied on April 29, 2014.
"In December 2014, the United States District Court of Connecticut
finalized the settlement agreement under which Ahold paid $297
million to the settlement fund and we were released from all
claims. Ahold had indemnified us in regards to this matter and, as
a consequence, payment of the settlement by Ahold did not impact
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."
VBI VACCINES: Contesting Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
vigorously contesting a putative class action complaint.
On November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, Case No. 14-cv-9435, on behalf of pre-Merger shareholders of
Paulson Capital (Delaware) Corp. who held shares on October 11,
2013 and were entitled to vote at the 2013 Shareholder Meeting,
against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as
of the date of the vote, in a matter captioned Furlong et al. v.
VBI Vaccines, Inc. et al., making claims arising under Section
20(a) and Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17
C.F.R. Sec. 240.14a-9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC. The
claims allege false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed
by the Company with the SEC on October 18, 2013 related to the
solicitation of votes from shareholders to authorize the Board to
pursue potential restructuring transactions. If the plaintiffs
were able to prove their allegations in this matter and to
establish the damages they assert, then an adverse ruling could
have a material impact on the Company. However, the Company
disputes the claims asserted in this putative class action case
and is vigorously contesting the matter.
VIKING DRILLING: Faces "Haynes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry S. Haynes, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Viking Drilling, LLC a/k/a Viking Onshore Drilling,
LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00396 (W.D. Tex., May 13, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Viking Drilling, LLC operates on-land mobile drilling rigs at one
or more well sites in Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Wayne Cowan, Esq.
BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 425-7100
Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com
VODAFONE: Outcome of ANZ Case to Affect Suit v. Telcos
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Colley, writing for itnews.com.au, reports that the law
firm behind a series of class actions against Australia's top
three telcos over late payment fees has put the legal action on
hold pending the outcome of a similar court battle against ANZ
Bank.
Steven Lewis, principal solicitor for ACA Lawyers, which intended
to launch separate actions against Vodafone, Telstra and Optus,
said the outcome of a late payment fee case against ANZ would
influence its decision on whether to continue to pursue the
carriers.
Following an appeal by the bank, the full court of the Federal
Court recently found that late credit card payment fees of $20 and
$35 that ANZ charged customers were not overly harsh and
unconscionable, overturning a decision last year by the Federal
Court.
Lewis said that the ANZ case, filed by law firm Maurice Blackburn
on behalf of its customers, pivoted on the same legal issues that
the class actions would confront. He noted that the full court of
the Federal Court found that ANZ's late payment fees were not
unreasonable compared to the costs the bank calculated it could
potentially bear looking forward from the time customers signed
contracts with it.
"That does not mean that every late fee is reasonable, but clearly
anyone contemplating another class action on the same legal
principle would be prudent to wait and see what the High Court
does," Lewis said.
Lewis was referring to Maurice Blackburn's intention to seek
special leave to appeal the matter to the High Court, which it
flagged immediately after the full court handed down its decision.
At the time, ACA Lawyers said it still intended to pursue the
telcos, but Lewis conceded that the firm would examine the High
Court's reasoning closely before further investing time and money
preparing its case against carriers.
The company also softened the language on its website inviting
telco customers to participate in the action shortly after the
full court handed down its ruling.
"Although the court has said that late payment fees can be
unlawful penalties, a recent decision held that certain bank late
payment fees are not unlawful. This decision will likely be
appealed to the High Court of Australia," it wrote.
"Regardless, other late fees such as those charged by the telcos
could still be found to be unlawful, and we are continuing to
investigate and accept registrations for the proposed telco class
actions."
ACA Lawyers claims Telstra has unlawfully pocketed $272 million in
gains from charging customers a flat fee of $15 for late bills
worth over $70. It also said Vodafone charged customers $10 per
late payment while Optus charged $15 for late payments on bills
exceeding $50.
WALGREEN CO: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Walgreen Co. and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased Walgreen securities
between March 25, 2014 and August 5, 2014 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 Walgreen securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 9, 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. o 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.
Walgreens operates as a retail drugstore chain in the United
States. The Company sells prescription and non-prescription drugs
and general merchandise through its Walgreens drug stores. As part
of a corporate reorganization completed in connection with its
acquisition of Alliance Boots on December 31, 2014, Walgreens
became a wholly owned subsidiary of Walgreen Boots Alliance
("WBA"), a global pharmacy-led health and wellbeing commercial
enterprise headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Walgreens' business and prospects,
including the purported benefits of Walgreens' strategic
partnership with Alliance Boots GmbH. Specifically, defendants
publicly announced goals for fiscal year 2016 of $1 billion in
combined synergies and $9 to $9.5 billion in adjusted earnings
before interest and taxes for the combined entity, but concealed a
$1.8 to $2.3 billion fiscal year 2016 earnings shortfall and the
reasons for the shortfall from the investing public.
As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and/or
omissions during the Class Period, the price of Walgreens stock
traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of $76.08
per share.
On June 19, 2012, Walgreens announced that it had entered into a
strategic partnership with Alliance Boots GmbH ("Alliance Boots")
to create a global pharmacy-led health and wellbeing enterprise
(the "Walgreen-Alliance Boots Transaction").
Defendants heralded the partnership as providing an unmatched
supply chain, an unparalleled portfolio of health and wellness
brands, and a unique platform in developed and emerging markets.
The deal would occur in two parts. Under "Step One," which took
place in 2012, Walgreens acquired a 45% equity ownership stake in
Alliance Boots in exchange for approximately $6.7 billion in cash
and stock. Under "Step Two," Walgreens acquired the remaining 55%
on December 31, 2014 for approximately $5.3 billion in cash and
144.3 million shares of Walgreens' common stock. Significantly,
whereas the first step of the transaction did not require a
shareholder vote, the second step did require shareholder
approval.
In August 2012, after Step One of the Walgreen-Alliance Boots
Transaction closed, the Company provided a set of publicly
announced goals for fiscal year 2016.
Defendants spoke about the benefits of the partnership and the FY
2016 Goals became critically important metrics that were regularly
discussed by the Company and followed by analysts because they
quantified the purported benefits of the merger and were important
to assessing the merits of voting in favor of Step Two of the
merger. The goals included $1 billion in combined synergies and
$9 billion to $9.5 billion in adjusted earnings before interest
and taxes ("EBIT").
On August 6, 2014, Walgreens and Alliance Boots hosted an investor
call. During the call, Gregory Wasson, Walgreens former Chief
Executive Officer, and Walgreens bundled the disclosure of the new
FY 2016 EBIT goal, which finally revealed the amount of the
massive shortfall that had been concealed during the Class Period
and that the purported benefits of the merger were not nearly as
robust as represented, with numerous optimistic statements.
Wasson disclosed that the Company was now tracking to a "mid-
point" of $7.2 billion for FY 2016 EBIT, stating "we're not happy
about lowering our previous goals." Wasson claimed "we have been
challenged by the ongoing global pharmacy reimbursement pressure,
which continues, and the rapid and pronounced increase in generic
drug pricing, which we did not fully anticipate, and now expect to
persist longer than we anticipated." Wasson also finally
disclosed the reason for the shortfall, stating that Walgreens had
not been "able to fully mitigate [generic inflation] given the
structure of certain existing contracts."
On August 7, 2014, Cowen and Company reported that because the
updated $7.2 billion EBIT estimate included a new $1 billion in
cost savings that were additive to the previously disclosed $1
billion in synergies, Walgreens' base business would be declining
at a negative 4% CAGR over the next two years. This was far below
the initial forecast of $9 to $9.5 billion back in August 2012
that appeared to be based on a positive CAGR. In addition, Cowen
commented that "[m]anagement's focus on the call around increased
reimbursement pressures and generic inflation is a bit confusing
to us, given this is not a new issue and shouldn't come as such a
surprise," adding that "everyone has known about the issues of
generic inflation" and "other players in the space have been able
to more than compensate for these issues."
After these disclosures, the Company's stock price plummeted,
dropping from a close of $69.12 per share on August 5, 2014 to a
close of $59.21 per share on August 6, 2014, losing more than 14%
of the value of the share price.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members.
WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Vacates Remand Order in "Goodman" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In COBY GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellant, NO. 15-55524, Wells Fargo appealed the order
of the district court remanding this case to the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles.
When Wells Fargo first attempted to remove this action to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), the district
court remanded the case because, under the unsettled law of the
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, it determined that
Wells Fargo was a citizen of both California and South Dakota,
thus defeating diversity. After that order was issued, the Ninth
Circuit decided Rouse v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, in which it held "a
national bank is a citizen only of the state in which its main
office is located." The Ninth Circuit, thus, concluded Wells
Fargo is a citizen only of South Dakota. Within 30 days after the
order Rouse was issued, Wells Fargo again removed this action. But
the district court again remanded, holding that the Ninth Circuit
decision in Rouse was not an "order or other paper" justifying
removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3).
That was legal error, ruled the Ninth Circuit in a memorandum
dated May 12, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/9cuLrQfrom Leagle.com.
"Here, Wells Fargo ascertained that the case was removable based
on our decision in Rouse. Because neither the complaint nor any
other paper "affirmatively reveal[ed] on its face the facts
necessary for federal court jurisdiction," Harris v. Bankers Life
& Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 691 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation
marks omitted), neither of the 30-day removal periods under
[Section] 1446 was triggered, and Wells Fargo's second CAFA
removal was timely. . . Moreover, our decision in Rouse is "a
relevant change of circumstances . . . justify[ing] a
reconsideration of a successive, good faith petition for removal,"
the Ninth Circuit concluded.
Accordingly, the district court's order is vacated, and the case
is remanded for further proceedings.
Costs of appeal were awarded to Wells Fargo.
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class in Suit Over Energy Star Label Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge certified a class of California consumers who
claim in a lawsuit they purchased Whirlpool refrigerators falsely
labeled as Energy Star compliant, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam,
writing for Courthouse News Service.
In a complaint filed in January 2012, lead plaintiffs Kyle Dei
Rossi and Mark Linthicum claimed they bought Whirlpool
refrigerators that had the Energy Star logos on them, but the
model numbers on the appliances showed they were not in compliance
with Energy Star requirements and were, therefore, disqualified
from the Energy Star program.
In 2013, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley dismissed claims for
breach of implied warranty of merchantability and violation of the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, but sustained claims for
breach of express warranty and California consumer protection
laws.
On April 28, Nunley granted certification for a subclass of
members who purchased the refrigerators in California, but denied
certification of a 32-state and District of Columbia class because
the laws of the 33 jurisdictions have material differences.
Whirlpool opposed class certification on the argument that the
consumers lacked standing based on lack of evidence they bought a
"mislabeled" refrigerator.
However, as admitted by Whirlpool, the Department of Energy tested
the exact refrigerators Dei Rossi and Linthicum purchased and
found that they did not comply with the Energy Star requirements.
Nunley also rejected Whirlpool's contention that it would be
impossible to determine whether any refrigerator was Energy Star-
compliant when sold and, thus, whether it was mislabeled.
"The proposed class members all purchased the same models of
refrigerators that were built to the same specification. To
accept defendant's assertion that this court would need to test
each refrigerator would be unreasonable and would support a
finding that class certification is not appropriate for litigation
involving consumer products. The court declines defendant's
invitation to do so," Nunley said.
Whirlpool attempted to argue that consumers did not suffer any
injury by purchasing the refrigerators because the Energy Star
program disqualification was for technical non-compliance and
their refrigerators consumed energy consistent with Department of
Energy testing requirements when used at the factory preset
temperature.
Nunley said that Whirlpool's argument is relevant to the amount of
damages the consumers suffered and can be presented at trial, but
is irrelevant for the purpose of determining class certification.
The judge found that common facts predominate the case and make
certification appropriate because the class members' claims all
arise from the same misrepresentation made by Whirlpool that the
refrigerators were Energy Star certified.
"[A]s to defendant's argument concerning whether the Energy Star
mark was material to a given class members' buying decision,
plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence, including consumer
surveys and defendant's own public statements, demonstrating that
the Energy Star mark is material," Nunley said.
However, a multi-state class is not appropriate for the consumers'
breach of warranty claims in light of the differences and nuances
in the laws governing the 33 jurisdictions involved in the action.
"Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the court finds
that each class member's breach of express warranty claims should
be governed by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the
transaction took place," Nunley said.
Therefore, the judge certified a class consisting of consumers who
purchased their refrigerators within the state of California, but
denied the proposed class consisting of 32 states and the District
of Columbia.
"The court made the right decision when it refused to certify a
class that would have included consumers residing in 32 states and
the District of Columbia," Whirlpool attorney Galen Bellamy told
Courthouse News. "As the court rightly concluded, a class action
is not an appropriate mechanism to resolve state law claims across
multiple jurisdictions."
He continued: "Whirlpool is disappointed, however, with the
decision to certify a California-only class, and believes the
order misapprehends the record and the EPA's guidance on Energy
Star disqualification. Whirlpool will continue to defend itself
in the litigation and is considering all available options."
Attorneys for the class did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.
The case is Kyle Dei Rossi and Mark Linthicum, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. Whirlpool Corporation,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00125-TLN-CKD, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California.
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over TCE Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4029tv.com reports that Judge P. K. Holmes dismissed a class-
action lawsuit against Whirlpool, according to a statement by a
company, following a settlement between Whirlpool and affected
property owners. The company has paid more than $3 million in
settlements reached last year. The lawsuit was brought by over 50
property owners in the Fort Smith area in May 2013 after the
company was accused of contaminating groundwater with chemical TCE
released from the company's former manufacturing facility in Fort
Smith.
The settlements included paying affected owners the amount that
their land depreciated plus 33%. In exchange, owners agreed to
relinquish all claims against the company.
With the class-action suit dismissed, Whirlpool said it will fight
the four claims still pending in court. Three of them are by
owners whose land did not have water where TCE was detected above
federal drinking water standards. The fourth did not accept
Whirlpool's settlement offer.
WORLD WRESTLING: McCullough et al. Launch Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Anderson, writing for WhatCulture.com, reports that three
former WWE employees have launched a class action suit against the
professional wrestling promotion, claiming that the world's
largest pro wrestling organization, has been engaging in
"egregious mistreatment" of its workers and that "the WWE has
known for years . . . the brutality in the ring has resulted in
dementia, Alzheimer's disease and a lot more."
Further claims state that the WWE has withheld medical research
and other evidence related to traumatic brain injuries suffered by
WWE wrestlers. The suit, filed by Russ McCullough, Ryan Sakoda,
and Matt Wiese (Luther Reigns), represents workers past and
present, and as with the recently filed class action lawsuit
against the UFC, it's possible that other professional wrestlers
past and present could join in.
For those who aren't familiar with the initial three names
attached to the suit, who are represented by Michael McShane --
mcshane@audetlaw.com -- and Jonas P. Mann --mann@audetlaw.com --
of Audet & Partners LLP, Luther Reigns might stand out the most.
Mr. Reigns came out of the Power Plant in the late 90s and quickly
joined WCW before spending four years in AWA and joining the WWE
in 2004. Initially, he found himself part of Team Angle along
with Kurt Angle and Mark Jindrak (he had defeated Charlie Haas,
with whom Angle had been feuding, in his debut). However, by 2005
Reigns was having creative differences with Paul Heyman and
requested his release from the promotion. After a brief stint in
the indies, he retired, and has dabbled in acting since.
Ryan Sakoda, who sometimes wrestled as Keiji Sakoda among other
names, signed a developmental deal with the WWE in 2003, and spent
a bit of time jobbing on SmackDown! and Velocity before being
released in August 2004. In 2007 he appeared in MTV's Wrestling
Society X, and went to the local circuit sometime after.
"Big" Russ McCullough, meanwhile, was with OVW and the WWF in the
early 2000s, but didn't last long, and hasn't appeared for any
notable promotion in some time.
The timing of the lawsuit is interesting, given CM Punk's much
publicized criticism of the WWE's head doctor and a lawsuit
stemming from it. The class action, obtained by TMZ, states "the
WWE coerces its wrestlers to work while they are injured by, among
other methods, threatening to strip them of their position within
the organization if they refuse."
One wonders how many past and present workers might decide to join
in, knowing they would be forever exiled from the WWE. That is
precisely the issue with the class action currently ongoing
against the UFC over fighter pay -- fight the man, and risk being
blacklisted. This case could also drag up ugly memories of the
Chris Benoit incident. Benoit, the former WWE champion who
murdered his wife and child prior to taking his own life, was
found to have severe CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) and
damage to all four lobes of the brain and brain stem. Julian
Bailes, head of neurosurgery at West Virginia University, stated
that Benoit's brain "resembled that of an 85 year old Alzheimer's
patient." Although many suspect dementia brought on by repeated
concussions suffered in the ring played a large part in the
murders, the WWE at the time dismissed the idea as "speculative."
Depending on the outcome of this class action, they may regret not
treating the matter more seriously.
YARGUS MANUFACTURING: Faces "Norton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Norton v. Yargus Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00131-JMS-WGH (S.D. Ind., May 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
Yargus Manufacturing, Inc. owns and operates manufacturing
facilities in Marshall, Illinois and Terre Haute, Vigo County,
Indiana.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Peter Kondras , Jr.
HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net
YELP INC: Bid for Reconsideration of Curry Case Dismissal Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In JOSEPH CURRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YELP INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-03547-JST, (N.D. Cal.), Lead Plaintiff
City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust
and Plaintiff Joseph Curry have filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration. The motion argues that the Court's
April 21, 2015 order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint contained several manifest
errors justifying reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-
9(b)(3).
Plaintiffs' motion alleges the Court's order was in manifest error
because it required "a numerical threshold or a critical mass of
facts to allege material falsity,", an approach the Court in
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano rejected.
According to District Judge Jon S. Tigar, "Rule 7-9(b)(3) states
that "[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts
or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court
before such interlocutory order" can form the basis for a
reconsideration motion. Nonetheless, much of Plaintiffs' motion
concerns arguments that were not presented to the Court during its
consideration of the motion to dismiss, specifically arguments
relating to the Supreme Court's decision in Matrixx Initiatives,
Inc. v. Siracusano, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1309, 1324 (2011).
Plaintiffs did not even cite Matrixx in their opposition.
Moreover, Matrixx is not a change of law, having been decided in
2011."
For these reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion
for reconsideration is denied.
A copy of the Court's May 12, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/gQwb5Hfrom Leagle.com.
YOUKU TUDOU: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Application Due
--------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until May 25, 2015 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Youku Tudou, Inc. if
they purchased the Company's securities between February 27, 2014
and March 19, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of Youku and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- . If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 25, 2015.
About the Lawsuit
Youku and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On March 19, 2015, Youku released its fourth quarter results,
reporting a net loss of $51.3 million, compared to $4 million in
the same quarter of 2013. Youku also 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 and that
it is now "evaluating the impact to its 2014 and historical
financial statements."
ZEPOL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Parker, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Zepol Communications, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01670 (N.D. Ga.,
May 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
Zepol Communications, LLC operates as a contractor to cable and
communication companies, with its principal place of business in
Gwinnett County, Georgia.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P. FL
Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM
* Cummings Manookian to File Suit Targeting Diamond Overgrading
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cummings Manookian disclosed that it will begin
filing a number of class action lawsuits centered on the dumping
of billions of dollars of intentionally overgraded diamonds on
hundreds of thousands of consumers.
Diamond overgrading is the practice of deliberately
misrepresenting a diamond's characteristics to a consumer. Most
commonly, a jeweler claims that one or more of the diamond's 4Cs
(carat, color, clarity and cut) is greater than its true grade.
Doing so, allows the jeweler to charge the public far more in
price than he or she could command at the diamond's true grade.
For years, through a global commercial conspiracy, unscrupulous
jewelers and their wholesalers have passed off inferior diamonds
as far more valuable than their actual worth by having them
"certified" or "graded" by known fraudulent grading houses. At
the request of diamond retailers and wholesalers, these grading
houses issued bogus certificates purporting to grade a diamond's
4Cs, using industry-accepted Gemological Institute of America
(GIA) terminology. In reality, the certificates intentionally and
consistently overstated the quality of the diamonds on the GIA
scale by as much as five grades.
By overstating the diamond's value, dishonest jewelers,
wholesalers and the grading organizations conspired to, and were
successful in, ripping off the U.S. public to the tune of billions
of dollars. In many cases, consumers paid premium prices for
jewelry that is better described as junk.
The Nashville-based law firm of Cummings Manookian pioneered the
legal avenue to recovery for consumers defrauded by diamond
overgrading. The firm filed the first cases in the country on the
issue and its lawsuits were instrumental in the downfall and
disbanding of one of the most notoriously fraudulent grading
organizations, EGL International.
Following a months-long, nationwide investigation, Cummings
Manookian has determined that the practice of defrauding consumers
via diamond overgrading was so pervasive in the diamond industry,
that multiple class and mass actions are required to seek redress
for the hundreds of thousands of victims. The suits include as
defendants nationally and regionally prominent retailers,
wholesalers, and grading organizations. The lawsuits will be
filed in rounds with the first round expected in early June.
According to attorney Brian Cummings, "Because of the widespread
nature of the fraud and the availability of triple damages and
attorney's fees, this may be the largest consumer action to ever
hit the jewelry industry."
*********
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 * * *